Question: Is it possible for a loss to be a "good" loss?
Answer: Absolutely.
OK. So it begs the next question: How can a loss EVER be considered a "good" one?
And now, the final answer: When it is a "virtual loss".
Before I get into all of the inherent advantages that accompany "virtual losses", I will begin with the definition:
A "virtual loss" is, simply stated, any loss that you did not bet into. Now, make no mistake of it, it is a loss; a loss to your preferred bet placement method. It is to be marked as a loss on your scorecard (either physically or, at least, mentally) and it is a loss that counts as would any other; in other words, a loss is still a loss, "virtual" or otherwise, and should be treated as such.
BUUUTTT, the inherent advantages of "virtual losses" are HUGE:
1.) They cost you NOTHING but time. Not one cent of your bankroll. (Begs another question, doesn't it?: What is of more value to you in the long run at the Bac tables, your time or your MONEY?)
2.) They serve to reduce stress; the stress related to the long-term battle that we face at each and every hand/shoe/session. In other words, "virtual losses", losses that cost us nothing, can be rather relieving, especially to our psyche.
3.) They can, most often, aid us in both getting (and betting) into the "more-favorable conditions" of our preferred bet placement strategies more often AND get us to our win goals easier/quicker. How so? Well, at Baccarat, we are playing, regardless of our bet placement preferences, basically a 50/50 game. And in that 50/50 game, the swings, or "variances" (as I prefer to call them), can come in waves that can, at times, be rather difficult to navigate. So it only makes perfect sense that the "absorption of virtual losses" into our preferred bet placement strategies can ONLY SERVE TO REDUCE OUR NEGATIVE VARIANCES. Now, make no mistake of it, sometimes it may work better than other times, but, IT CAN ONLY HELP.
So what does this all mean to us in the end? It means that when the patient and disciplined player is sitting at the table AWAITING THE CORRECT PLAYING CONDITIONS BEFORE PLACING A REAL BET, they are actually reaping the rewards associated with the ABSORPTION OF VIRTUAL LOSSES; losses that cost us NOTHING.
In fact, there are times when I'm awaiting my preferred placements to come to the fore-front, and I'm actually pleased with the wait. I'm pleased because I KNOW that, sooner or later, MY preferred placement strategy will show itself. And the longer I wait, the more sure of that fact I am. And therein builds my confidence in my overall game.
So, you see what happens here? It's all good. Wading through virtual losses is GOOD. And it's CHEAP. And it's REWARDING in the end. Can you see that?
Here's hoping you can. Stay well.
I only start/keep making the real money wager if I win the majority of past three decision, hey hey.
Hello, Soxster, I trust all is well with you.
While I surely can appreciate your type of play, my post refers more to losing more plays (plays, not money) than winning before commencing real betting.
You see, regardless our preferred bet selection method, we must, at some point or another, come to the realization that we will have to absorb losses. And, IMHO, it is HOW we absorb those losses that will, in the end, define our success (or, alternatively, the lack thereof).
So I prefer the wait. In fact, sometimes, the longer the better. I feel that the more virtual losses that mount up, the stronger my plays will appear when they do.
Now, so that no one gets the wrong idea here, this is not an exact science. In fact, rather far from it. I am guaranteed nothing even when I do decide to pony up my bets. I could be, and have been, wrong about the shoe now dispensing the decisions that I've been awaiting. But, that said, it most surely is a viable and workable approach. Why? Because I can't be wrong forever, especially when already witnessing quite a few virtual losses passing me by.
And I'll tell you why I can't be wrong forever: Statistics. I play a tight game, and my game (my preferred bet selection process) is geared toward, shall I say, the "majority" of results, statistically-speaking. I trust you can understand and grasp what I am trying to convey here. Certain statistics are undeniable, and that all translates to certain results that are similarly undeniable. It then becomes only a matter of time....of patience, of discipline, and of time.
And, last but not least, of course, money management. I leave you with this one question: Does there exist a much better or more important ingredient of any money-management process than the "no-bet"? I think not. I think loss avoidance is the key to anyone's money-management....heck, it's the key to anyone's overall Bac game, IMHO. And know this: Virtual Loss = Loss Avoidance.
Stay well.
good answers gr8plyer, my question to you is what's the correct MM do you sue when playing bac. im sure you have bankroll you use to play your session or shoes. if i have 5k what's my base bets and what's the highest bet am i allowed without going suicide with my bankroll.
While playing one system I virtual play a second compatible system.
When the played system throws a curve ball (a certain signal that I call a 'red alert') I switch to playing the virtual system, and virtual play the played system.
I play the virtual system until it wins 14 units, or it loses 146 units, or the now virtual, played system loses a virtual 66 units.
I then switch back to the played system and virtual play the virtual system until another 'red alert' appears.
This type of set up is the best use of virtual bets I know of.
Quote from: gr8player on September 12, 2015, 08:44:26 PMI feel that the more virtual losses that mount up, the stronger my plays will appear when they do.
??? Nope not really, the cards know nothing about prior hands, patterns, trends, you are
"Anthropomorphizing the game" but too committed, emotional wrapped up to realize.
Quote from: gr8player on September 12, 2015, 08:44:26 PM
Now, so that no one gets the wrong idea here, this is not an exact science. In fact, rather far from it. I am guaranteed nothing even when I do decide to pony up my bets. I could be, and have been, wrong about the shoe now dispensing the decisions that I've been awaiting. But, that said, it most surely is a viable and workable approach. Why? Because I can't be wrong forever, especially when already witnessing quite a few virtual losses passing me by.
Too bad when the virtual losses are virtual winners, and then when you do bet, you hit more losses. So you bet even more shallow, without realizing every hand is still 50-50, but you can't keep shallow betting forever.
Quote from: gr8player on September 12, 2015, 08:44:26 PM
And I'll tell you why I can't be wrong forever: Statistics. I play a tight game, and my game (my preferred bet selection process) is geared toward, shall I say, the "majority" of results, statistically-speaking. I trust you can understand and grasp what I am trying to convey here. Certain statistics are undeniable, and that all translates to certain results that are similarly undeniable.
Nope, it appears to me that you are trying to convince yourself more than anybody here, no substance, the reader is left guessing what you are getting at.
I like to think I'm intelligent enough to recognize certain traits, it can be useful to step back and listen to your own beliefs, analyse your beliefs as a third person would, then ask yourself why? Why do some seek, need, are so desperate for acknowledgement from others, once you do that, you hopefully can become normal like the majority.
Quote from: greenguy on September 13, 2015, 05:32:10 AM
While playing one system I virtual play a second compatible system.
When the played system throws a curve ball (a certain signal that I call a 'red alert') I switch to playing the virtual system, and virtual play the played system.
I play the virtual system until it wins 14 units, or it loses 146 units, or the now virtual, played system loses a virtual 66 units.
I then switch back to the played system and virtual play the virtual system until another 'red alert' appears.
This type of set up is the best use of virtual bets I know of.
Hello, Greenguy, I trust all is well with you.
Hey, if it's working for you, go for it. Wonderful. That said, I'm not a big fan of "switching" systems midstream, preferring to concentrate my efforts strictly on my preferred bet placement strategy.
Stay well.
Quote from: georgebac on September 12, 2015, 10:59:41 PM
good answers gr8player, my question to you is what's the correct MM do you sue when playing bac. im sure you have bankroll you use to play your session or shoes. if i have 5k what's my base bets and what's the highest bet am i allowed without going suicide with my bankroll.
Hello, Georgebac, I trust all is well with you.
There really is no "correct MM" for this game, I would suggest you keep your bets within your own personal "comfort zone". By doing so, you will not suffer through any of the "hesitation" that is associated with "over-betting".
I am rather familiar with the "5K bankroll", as I used to buy in for anywhere from 5K to 7K as a rule. That said, I've found that buying in for half that amount, and betting half my bet sizes, has allowed me to expand my money-management on a "shoe-to-shoe" basis.
But, to answer your question, a 5K buy-in can have you betting $100 as base bet with a $200 max bet. I would use the base bet always, but after any win, I would parlay it to $200. I'd have a "sliding scale" win goal....generally anywhere from $500 to $1000, depending on how my session started off...with a loss limit of $1500.
But please know, Georgebac, that these numbers were played by me as a very experienced player, and I would NEVER, EVER recommend playing these sorts of unit sizes to anyone that doesn't know HOW TO CONTROL them.
So my advice to you or anyone else that decides to play this game: PROCEED WITH CAUTION. Play small rather than big, and, in that way, at least give yourself a chance at success. Alternatively, if you happen to fail, it didn't cost you an "arm and a leg". Take heed, and take care.
Yep, to get a long term control over the game the virtual losses topic is of paramount importance, imho.
Are we losing the virtual winnings waiting for such virtual losses to appear so that everything will be proportionally placed or, even worse, negative oriented on our future actual betting?
The answer is very easy.
Let's say we want to wait a 2.5 sr deviation on some SELECTED betting situations.
After having patiently waited that our betting target has reached this point, we'll start to bet then registering the times when we'll have a slight RTM effect opposed to the times when that deviation will go up to higher values.
If the RTM effect will be superior to the opposite effect we'll get an edge and it remains to assess whether this is capable to invert the house edge.
In a perfect 50/50 undependent game we are guaranteed to get the same number of RTM events/higher deviation events. So there's no point to wait for a given deviation in order to get a possible advantage.
Luckily and providing a proper registration of the MLE distributions, at baccarat such circumstances wholly considered tend to favor the RTM side.
At the same time, we could act on the virtual winnings knowing that some winnings will be more likely on certain patterns, so now we want to properly evaluate their lenght.
We don't want to wait very rare situations on two opposed "simple" patterns as some more likely distributions will automatically offer many betting opportunities that by magical reasons have shown a valuable propensity toward one side of action.
as.
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on September 13, 2015, 11:06:26 PM
Yep, to get a long term control over the game the virtual losses topic is of paramount importance, imho.
Are we losing the virtual winnings waiting for such virtual losses to appear so that everything will be proportionally placed or, even worse, negative oriented on our future actual betting?
No. If my preferred bet placements are prevalent when I first get to the table, then, by all means, I'm on them from the get-go. It is those times when they are not prevalent that I need to employ my "virtual loss" strategy, as I await their next arrival.
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on September 13, 2015, 11:06:26 PM
Luckily and providing a proper registration of the MLE distributions, at baccarat such circumstances wholly considered tend to favor the RTM side.
This is an absolute. Only a matter of time. And personal variance. In short, statistics matter, especially as they pertain to the "most likely event distributions". One needs only to know what to look for, and be patient and disciplined enough so that they allow themselves to profit by it.
Stay well.
Quote from: gr8player on September 14, 2015, 12:56:12 PM
One needs only to know what to look for, and be patient a
In which case, what
you look for could be defined,
you could define many "what to look for triggers". Then apply conditional statements, such as if this happens (you lose), then you do this (fold yer arms).
What you end up with is repeatable and predictable behavior, er some might call it
MECHANICAL[smiley]cps/noway.gif[/smiley]
Of course you could share with all your friends, what it is you look for, but never have and never will, I can only speculate why [smiley]toto/d200712191811061584.gif[/smiley]
Johno/RolexWatch, I just don't understand why you feel the need to post your "steaming pile of stuff" in my thread. You don't see me coming into any of the threads that you've authored in this forum, even if and when I've disagreed totally with your message. Rather, I choose to keep it to myself, if for no other reason than to respect the rights of this forum and its members.
Where did you get this obviously uncontrollable urge to denigrate and demean anything and everything that I post in this forum? What purpose is your blatant disrespect supposed to serve? All you're doing is weakening this forum with your constant and unnecessary intrusions and accusations into anything and everything that is "gr8player". How selfish must you be not to care.
Why don't you think of this for a minute before your next attack?: There actually are members that enjoy reading me, and actually gain alot of insight about how to approach and play this game from reading my posts. Some, believe it or not, have improved their results at the tables by incorporating some of my theories/methodologies into their own games.
So it is with those members in mind that I will continue to post here in this forum, regardless what you, Johno/RolexWatch, think about it. I'm not saying you shouldn't state your opinions, for that is what any public forum is for; I ask only for you to do so respectfully.
Gr8player, I'm not saying that waiting virtual losses is the only valuable tool to get a control over the game.
Actually many positive starting shoes will end up positively.
And you know very well what I'm talking about.
as.
Quote from: gr8player on September 14, 2015, 07:55:57 PM
Where did you get this obviously uncontrollable urge to denigrate and demean anything and everything that I post in this forum? How selfish must you be not to care.
You short memory when it suits you. You have denigrated my style of play for years with your snide comments here and there, well now you have my attention and you whing about it, yeah typical.
Quote from: gr8player on September 14, 2015, 07:55:57 PMThere actually are members that enjoy reading me, and actually gain alot of insight about how to approach and play this game from reading my posts. Some, believe it or not, have improved their results at the tables by incorporating some of my theories/methodologies into their own games.
Ha don't make me laugh we are all friends here are we not (LOL)? It's not about helping anybody, other than you feeding YOUR URGE. What do you actually post that you haven't regurgitated over the last 10 years? Same old wishy washy lack no substance hot air waffle. If you wanted to assist anybody, just one person, for one in the last 10 years you would post a shoe and explain how and why you bet, but you won't because you don't want to embarrass yourself, you don't want it to be known behind the hot air, there exists only a vacuum.
You're too far gone, I meet people like you all the time in casinos, normal friendly people, but once the topic turns to gambling and bet selection in particular, then the insanity becomes prevalent. Nobody could really lambaste how you play, because in the last decade you have never revealed anything other than handing over a very substantial 6 figure amount of coin to the casinos.
GR8,
IMO, in general I agree with you. The loss could be convenient, BUT as far as is played at tables.
if you don't put money for real, it doesn't change your variance curve.
when I "expect" losses I bet the minimum till the ranges get back to normal. This IS a convenient loss!
Quote from: alrelax on September 17, 2015, 04:17:01 PM
I'm sorry, but to go to a casino and sit at a table, and I am under the impression this is meant to be 20-30-40 hands or so, is senseless. Then suddenly a trigger comes up and you wager one or two bets??
Why not work at a regular paid job no matter what it is and you will realize a winner of a 100% paycheck on Friday's??? Whatever.
Some cats have the ability to grind out an income at the baccarats table, simple as that, hey hey.
Quote from: andrebac on September 16, 2015, 04:45:14 PM
GR8,
IMO, in general I agree with you. The loss could be convenient, BUT as far as is played at tables.
if you don't put money for real, it doesn't change your variance curve.
when I "expect" losses I bet the minimum till the ranges get back to normal. This IS a convenient loss!
Hello, Andrebac, my friend, I trust all is well with you.
OK. The first part of your post, the "if you don't put up money for real, it doesn't change your variance", this I absolutely disagree with. Losses (or wins, for that matter) do not know whether or not you put money onto them. Only the tracking of those losses matter, regardless of your betting or not. Can't agree there, my friend, but...
...the second part of your post, the "when I expect losses I bet the minimum till the ranges get back to normal", this is PERFECTION. This is how a serious player, a really serious player, approaches the game. Variance. It gets too high, cut your bets back, for you know that, sooner or later, the correction is impending. Witness yesterday in AC:
My "preferred bet selection process" simply couldn't lose. I hit my win goal in 20 min, winning 8 of 10 bets, +6 units (plus 1.5 units more because I won with a "match play", so really a 7 1/2 unit win).
Now, that's wonderful and all, but my bet selection doesn't hit at 80%, no matter how "preferred" it is to me. LOL
So, my next session (I'm going tomorrow...taking my son for his 24th b'day), I will be extra mindful of my strike rate(s), and will adjust my unit size rather quickly if necessary. THAT is how important variance is, as so it must be incorporated and accounted for inside of my play, lest I'm just a "sitting duck" for a downside correction.
Anyhow, I hope you're doing well, Andrebac, you are a true friend, and it's always a pleasure to hear from you. Stay well.
Quote from: soxfan on September 17, 2015, 08:37:39 PM
Some cats have the ability to grind out an income at the baccarats table, simple as that, hey hey.
Hello, Soxster....
....very true. It is a "grind"; no better term for it than that.
Some players come to terms with that fact, and some couldn't care less. It doesn't take long, either at the tables or even here in this forum, to ascertain those that "do" and those that "don't".
Stay well, my friend.
Hello, Alrelax.
It's all good. Everyone has their own playing style based primarily on their long-term goals for this game. And, as I said, it's all good. What works for me might not work for you, because, well, we view the game very differently.
Now, with that said, that doesn't make me right and you wrong, no more than it makes you right and me wrong. You see, there is no "right and wrong" in this game, there is only a "me and you" (read: individuals).
I've come to the conclusion, based strictly upon reading the majority of your posts, that your style of play is, shall I say, "aggressive", and I happen to think that you might care more for the "thrill of the hunt" than the actual long-term results. I've no problem with that; in fact, I'd offer a rather experienced-based opinion that the vast majority of casino patrons are "thrill-seekers". If they're fine with it, why shouldn't I be?....after all, they're playing with their money, not mine. As are you.
I'm more the "grinder" type....always have been, and I'm quite certain that I always will be. Now, Al, lest anyone make any mistake of it, "grinding", in and of itself, does not increase my chances of winning any more than one's "aggression" might decrease their's. I'm quite certain that you'll win a heck-of-alot more money than I would at any winning session, and I'm just as certain that there can exist portions of a shoe where aggression is most probably the best way to maximize results.
But, IMHO, it's not any "way to live" at the tables. Especially not over the long term. But I don't think that you're thinking of the long term whenever you sit down at a session of play, so, again, it all comes down to style of play and what one might desire to obtain from playing this game.
I do happen to know what I want from this game, and I do happen to know exactly how to go about obtaining it. And so I choose the grind. Wait, strike that.....I should say: I MUST GRIND, because that style is the ONLY STYLE that will support my sort of play, both bet selection- and money management-wise.
And so, as individuals, we are all unique in our styles, based primarily upon our final "wants and desires" from this game. So be it. As I said at the outset...it's all good. Stay well.
Quote from: alrelax on September 18, 2015, 09:52:44 PMI have said it a long time ago, prior to deleting hundreds of posts I had on this board. I risk my bank roll/buy-in money just about each and every time I play. I have no records, but I know 'umpteen' times I have won large and many fold my bankrolls, many many fold. Yes, I have lost as well. I don't 'grind' to win one or two or three units here and there. I do play aggressively and I play large, whether in wager size or in spirit.
What a dweeb you are. Still denigrating everyone else's style of play as "senseless."
Funny how this is a random guessing game and no grinder or system or scrutinizer with his head down has an advantage yet our resident Mr. Big shot with the "beautiful wife" (don't forget boboo) simply (yawn) follows the shoe, bets large, lives large and although he doesn't exactly know still insists that he has won "umpteen" more times his bankroll over the years. hahahahahahahaah!
I don't read all your posts but it still seems to me after all this time that your main reason for posting is to basically talk about yourself because most of what I read is just an introductory for you tell people how wonderful your life is! Sad and kind of pathetic really. IMO of course.
J
Quote from: Jimske on September 20, 2015, 02:01:52 AM
What a dweeb you are. Still denigrating everyone else's style of play as "senseless."
Funny how this is a random guessing game and no grinder or system or scrutinizer with his head down has an advantage yet our resident Mr. Big shot with the "beautiful wife" (don't forget boboo) simply (yawn) follows the shoe, bets large, lives large and although he doesn't exactly know still insists that he has won "umpteen" more times his bankroll over the years. hahahahahahahaah!
I don't read all your posts but it still seems to me after all this time that your main reason for posting is to basically talk about yourself because most of what I read is just an introductory for you tell people how wonderful your life is! Sad and kind of pathetic really. IMO of course.
J
:thumbsup:
I was waiting for gr8 to offer his reasoning behind "virtual losses" or stats, but I reckon he hasn't rationalized it out like I do, or just being evasive, also who am I to defend the what the great 'gr8' posts, much more entertaining to see him fall into the holes that he digs for himself.
Anyway regarding this wait for virtual losses type of strategy, seeing I have also used this approach, I see nothing wrong with it and am open to any suggestion it could be construed as gamblers fallacy, I will explain why.
Firstly, mindset; your mindset needs to be geared to "avoiding defeat rather than maximising profit", which is the case for me. IMO it is worst to go home broke than making a bucket load of money, therefore are willing to sacrifice wins for avoiding losses.
Now the to strategy itself, irrespective of the bet selection, if you have ever spent endless hours testing 100's of shoes, you will know, 2L, 3L and 4LIAR are pretty common, 7L & 8L (even 12LIAR and beyond) less so.
Through the process of testing, if we are to expect many occurrences of small losses they are losses which our staking plan has to handle, so we eliminate those would be losses from our staking plan by simply waiting for them to happen prior to betting, obviously hoping that when we do make a move, it is not one of those rare events of 12LIAR, however our staking plan and overall strategy should be easier to handle 8LIAR (waiting for 4LIAR) than 12LIAR, plus common sense should kick in and we stop after X losses.
Some shoes will not present many betting opportunities, that is the nature of beast and it comes back to the the players discipline and what they want out of the game (mindset). For certain strategies they may continue to lose after virtual losses, but all losing patterns can be defined in advance, therefore you could also consider some sort of switch given certain traits of a portion of any shoe. An example could be as simple as switching to FLD given certain triggers, there are literally many ways to implement and view it all, from waiting for FLD or DBL to lose X amount of times now bet against it continuance for a fixed series of bets, or my own template approaches.
Yes it takes a hell of a lot of patience and discipline to implement and can result in a very boring game, but that said there are ways around that also via dual progressions. To recap test your own preferred bet options, how many times did it go beyond 8LIAR when tested against say 300 shoes, v's how many times did it lose 4 times in a row? The greater number of 4LIAR is something you have to handle at the tables, you can see what I'm getting at here. Also I never doubted gr8's ability or intention to explain the concept properly, as either I or he sees it, nor did I necessarily disagreed with the OP either.
Merits of such styles of play are highly debatable and exist in the eyes of the beholder, an alternative is simply don't wait for virtual losses and design a MM approach that can hopefully handle possible frequent 4LIAR's which is not IMO impossible, but more stressful.
I'm in agreement with Rolex. Virtual losses are a means of attempting to get statistical advantage. Whether one is monitoring SD, RTM, personal variance or even gambling for or against limits from a curve from a particular bet selection. No, they're not infallible and their success or lack thereof may depend on other factors such as bankroll, table limits, and MM. Another tool for the serious non-recreational gambler.
Quote from: andrebac on September 16, 2015, 04:45:14 PM
GR8,
IMO, in general I agree with you. The loss could be convenient, BUT as far as is played at tables.
if you don't put money for real, it doesn't change your variance curve.
when I "expect" losses I bet the minimum till the ranges get back to normal. This IS a convenient loss!
Yes and no Andre, IMO. If Virtual losses are used in a structural way they will indeed change the variance. But if used in, shall we say, a more random fashion then they will become part of an unchanging variance.
Having said all that I generally don't use virtual losses in my live play but I have practiced with them when looking at play options and do think they can be profitable.
J
Quote from: Rolex-Watch on September 20, 2015, 09:14:56 AM
I was waiting for gr8 to offer his reasoning behind "virtual losses" or stats, but I reckon he hasn't rationalized it out like I do, or just being evasive, also who am I to defend the what the great 'gr8' posts, much more entertaining to see him fall into the holes that he digs for himself.
Anyway regarding this wait for virtual losses type of strategy, seeing I have also used this approach, I see nothing wrong with it and am open to any suggestion it could be construed as gamblers fallacy, I will explain why.
Firstly, mindset; your mindset needs to be geared to "avoiding defeat rather than maximising profit", which is the case for me. IMO it is worst to go home broke than making a bucket load of money, therefore are willing to sacrifice wins for avoiding losses.
Now the to strategy itself, irrespective of the bet selection, if you have ever spent endless hours testing 100's of shoes, you will know, 2L, 3L and 4LIAR are pretty common, 7L & 8L (even 12LIAR and beyond) less so.
Through the process of testing, if we are to expect many occurrences of small losses they are losses which our staking plan has to handle, so we eliminate those would be losses from our staking plan by simply waiting for them to happen prior to betting, obviously hoping that when we do make a move, it is not one of those rare events of 12LIAR, however our staking plan and overall strategy should be easier to handle 8LIAR (waiting for 4LIAR) than 12LIAR, plus common sense should kick in and we stop after X losses.
Some shoes will not present many betting opportunities, that is the nature of beast and it comes back to the the players discipline and what they want out of the game (mindset). For certain strategies they may continue to lose after virtual losses, but all losing patterns can be defined in advance, therefore you could also consider some sort of switch given certain traits of a portion of any shoe. An example could be as simple as switching to FLD given certain triggers, there are literally many ways to implement and view it all, from waiting for FLD or DBL to lose X amount of times now bet against it continuance for a fixed series of bets, or my own template approaches.
Yes it takes a hell of a lot of patience and discipline to implement and can result in a very boring game, but that said there are ways around that also via dual progressions. To recap test your own preferred bet options, how many times did it go beyond 8LIAR when tested against say 300 shoes, v's how many times did it lose 4 times in a row? The greater number of 4LIAR is something you have to handle at the tables, you can see what I'm getting at here. Also I never doubted gr8's ability or intention to explain the concept properly, as either I or he sees it, nor did I necessarily disagreed with the OP either.
Merits of such styles of play are highly debatable and exist in the eyes of the beholder, an alternative is simply don't wait for virtual losses and design a MM approach that can hopefully handle possible frequent 4LIAR's which is not IMO impossible, but more stressful.
OK, Johno/RolexWatch, this quoted post is smart, intelligent, and spoken as a true and serious player. You know all too well that I'll be the first to tell you when you're off base, and even abusive; but, that said, this post is so "spot-on" that I am absolutely compelled to point it out. Great job!
Now that I've gotten past that, let's break it down a bit, shall we?:
"Avoiding defeat rather than maximizing profit"....absolute GOLD. Why? Because we are playing, at the moment our money hits the felt, as "negative expectancy" game, and the serious player both understands and comes to grips with that fact early on. or else gets eaten alive at the tables. Moreover, the serious player knows that even those "less than maximized profits" will all add up very, very nicely over the long term.
"Process of testing losses in-a-row"....more GOLD. If you've read my posts over the years, you know that I keep a ledger book where I log all of my sessions' results; and among those stats are my "losses in-a-row". I know my longest, shortest, and, most importantly, my averages. How can one possibly construct any money management plan lacking such important and vital statistics? In point of fact, my Gr8Player's Progression (which I utilize to this day) was built around such statistics.
"Therefore you could consider some sort of switch"....this is where I respectfully disagree. Switching is not an option, in fact, that is the "why and how" of the development of my "virtual loss" strategy. Switching will lead only to more frustration more often than not, and the last thing that you want to find yourself doing at the tables, in the heat of the battle, is "second-guessing" yourself. Not good.
"Design a money management approach that can handle 4 losses-in-a-row"....again, GOLD. You and I both know that this is not hard to do, and, frankly, is a must. Why? Because losses happen. Can't take it? Don't play. Alternatively, the serious player both recognizes it as fact and KNOWS exactly how to deal with it.
Again, great post, great job. Keep it up, and stay well.
Quote from: Jimske on September 20, 2015, 04:24:02 PM
I'm in agreement with Rolex. Virtual losses are a means of attempting to get statistical advantage. Whether one is monitoring SD, RTM, personal variance or even gambling for or against limits from a curve from a particular bet selection. No, they're not infallible and their success or lack thereof may depend on other factors such as bankroll, table limits, and MM. Another tool for the serious non-recreational gambler.Yes and no Andre, IMO. If Virtual losses are used in a structural way they will indeed change the variance. But if used in, shall we say, a more random fashion then they will become part of an unchanging variance.
Having said all that I generally don't use virtual losses in my live play but I have practiced with them when looking at play options and do think they can be profitable.
J
First off, Jimske, welcome back! Either I missed it, or I can't recall reading anything of yours in quite a while. Nice to see you posting again.
Now, with that out of the way, let's look at your: "I generally don't use virtual losses"....
....are you sure about that? You see, every time you "sit out" and "no-bet" when your "nemesis" pattern/bet selection appears as dominant in any portion of the shoe, you are, at the very least, attempting to "avoid losses" (read: absorb "virtual losses"). So you may be doing it even subconsciously, or maybe unaware of it, but I'm rather certain that at some point or another, you're in "loss avoidance mode". You simply mightn't label it as such. But, my friend, labels don't matter; only the "end game" matters, the end game where we come out on top in this game.
Stay well, and stay "logged in", for I've always respected both your play and your opinion.
Hello, Alrelax.
Your tone is that of a man that is upset....upset about what?....of that I am unsure.
But allow me simply to say that, no, I do not "sit at the table charting/plotting/planning for say 20 to 40 hands while adding up my virtual losses". Rather, Al, I play. If and when my preferred bet selection is "triggered in", I play and, yes, even bet, with REAL MONEY, for it.
That said, I do utilize my "virtual loss" option (and the "no-bet" option that accompanies same) when that situation arises, as well. "That situation"? That situation is when my preferred plays are either not being triggered and/or not hitting. And then, most importantly, I'll adjust my betting and my money management in order to maximize on my current "loss statistics", especially when it appears as if my plays are on the "upswing".
Call it "virtual losses", call it "money management", call it a "gray elephant" if it pleases you; just know that whatever you may wish to label it, it all works very, very well for me and my style of play.
So, if I were you, Al, I'd try not to get myself so upset about the modes of play that others might use, even if they are vastly different from yours. If you'd simply take the time to view my posts right here in this very thread, I addressed that issue earlier when I stated that you (and anyone else) should play the style that they are most comfortable with. Let's try not to turn a good thread with a solid message into any simple child's-play pissing match, shall we? Take care.
Quote from: alrelax on September 21, 2015, 04:58:09 PM
Yes, I am almost convinced now that sitting at a live casino table and charting/plotting/planning for say 20 to 40 hands and adding up my 'virtual losses' is definitely the way to go! I can now, with your help and explanations, understand the power-ability-thinking clearly, and saving my entire bankroll, this simple but elaborate exercise in 'virtual losses' actually gives a player! Great, now I am ready!!!
Why didn't I realize that losing say 20-30-40 hands virtually will allow me to jump on the bandwagon and win endlessly??? I am so unintelligent! :applause:
Beautiful! [smiley]aes/lol.png[/smiley] Keep showing your ignorance. It goes well with your persona as the "ugly American" people so often disdain!
Look. I think everyone accepts the fact that you're a recreational "medium to low roller" gambler. That's not a put down. Nobody cares or wants to put you down for it. We get that you don't know or care about statistics and have no real interest in studying the game from that perspective. But why the great animosity toward other peoples play or interests? You sure it's really not about your own frustration with your own losing game?
But continue patting yourself on the back and puffing yourself up. I'm pretty sure everyone is just wishing they were Big Al! [smiley]aes/wink.png[/smiley]
Quote from: gr8player on September 20, 2015, 09:18:31 PM
First off, Jimske, welcome back! Either I missed it, or I can't recall reading anything of yours in quite a while. Nice to see you posting again.
I check in during the summer but don't play much. I generally got more interesting things to do.
QuoteNow, with that out of the way, let's look at your: "I generally don't use virtual losses"....
....are you sure about that? You see, every time you "sit out" and "no-bet" when your "nemesis" pattern/bet selection appears as dominant in any portion of the shoe, you are, at the very least, attempting to "avoid losses" (read: absorb "virtual losses"). So you may be doing it even subconsciously, or maybe unaware of it, but I'm rather certain that at some point or another, you're in "loss avoidance mode". You simply mightn't label it as such. But, my friend, labels don't matter; only the "end game" matters, the end game where we come out on top in this game.
Stay well, and stay "logged in", for I've always respected both your play and your opinion.
I generally play a fixed mechanical game so if I sit out it's because I've quit the game either winner or loser. If losing I may wait for a certain situation to make a few bets (1 or 2 or if I lose 2 of 3). It may be semantics but yes I am "skipping" bets that I would make if I was winning but I don't consider them virtual bets. I'm just waiting for the next shoe.
If one were to wait for a certain condition to ocurr, say 5 LIAR, before start betting that would be waiting for virtual losses. So to me that is all statistically based since even in a 50-50 game there are statistical limitations.
Quote from: alrelax on September 21, 2015, 07:18:57 PM
Upset??? I was happy I found this 'virtual loss' system which will save me tens of thousands of dollars and allow my to finally wager and prevail with constant winning hands!!!! I LOVE IT! I am happy, upset----furthest thing from the sheer truth. [smiley]aes/joking.png[/smiley]
face it Al you have a weak ego, I've said this before but you deleted my response, do you want all to swoon that you are known in all the VIP rooms stateside? I wasn't the only who found it unusual that a while back you posted lots of happy snaps, yet no chips, no wad in front of you, no room shots of your winnings spread on the comp'd duvet. yet pictures of everything else, posting pictures of your family minus yourself, kinda weird....
You post pics of your gold monkey, but no chips?? Yet remind us many times per week the worth of your salvage business, we've all been there pal, we don't have to keep reminding all and sundry like we need our ego to be massaged, I'm sure the VIP hosts will do that, don't expect too much of that here. For somebody who keeps banging on about VIP service I think your donation to this board was on the low side, why even bother, far less than the cost of one of your comp'd dinners, but to each his own. Also for such a busy person doing his best to clean up the traffic mess & keeping the roads open you seem to spend an awful amount of time on gambling forums. We could equally take the p1ss out of your monkey strategy. What you, I or anybody else does is all the same, no advantage, no disadvantage.
This brings me back to any virtual loss strategy, as I said, the merits are debatable, certainly the way I play it (can't comment 'bout gr8, cos that's a mystery he enjoys), debatable because after any wait/trigger, the next hand remains 50-50, so while it may appear smart based on stats, after you try it and still lose, you are left wondering. However it gives the player a methodology, a reason to bet or not to bet, which isn't a bad thing, while not necessarily guaranteeing a positive outcome. .
Quote from: Rolex-Watch on September 21, 2015, 09:37:04 PM
This brings me back to any virtual loss strategy, as I said, the merits are debatable, certainly the way I play it (can't comment 'bout gr8, cos that's a mystery he enjoys), debatable because after any wait/trigger, the next hand remains 50-50, so while it may appear smart based on stats, after you try it and still lose, you are left wondering. However it gives the player a methodology, a reason to bet or not to bet, which isn't a bad thing, while not necessarily guaranteeing a positive outcome.
The importance of structure aside. Absolutely no guarantees but one cannot deny statistics and that certain conditions are, in fact, rare and/or ocurr less than others. The problem as I see it lies in the betting structure. Progressive vs. flat.
Take flat first. Let's use asymbac idea of actually being able to ascertain a specific condition. So we are making the assumption that waiting on this condition is akin to virtual losses (betting). This condition must have such a high positive advantage that would allow making one flat bet a practical endeavor even if it only appeared once every, say 150 decisions. To be practically profitable that advantage would have to be pretty high to make it worthwhile to overcome the variance problem even with a steep unit size. How much? I don't know. Maybe greater than 55%. Enter $ per hour as the final decider.
Progressive betting then poses the same problem with or without using virtual losses. We need to win more of the small bets to overcome the occasional big bets which we lose when the variance kicks in or table max kicks in. If we can eliminate table max (virtually or not) then it's just a matter of having enough bankroll (and stomach) to wait out a win. Of course we must overcome the nemesis of commission.
So the whole idea of virtual losses is only effective if we have a true advantage. Otherwise we end up back at the 50-50 game.
Does than mean that virtual losses have no place? No, because we are gambling. Either we are actually gambling on a theory that the game is NOT 50-50 or that we will be able to extend our luck through statistical limitations. Many believe the former is true and if it is then using virtual losses to extend our progression will have a true advantage. If not then one may still go a long time before getting burned.
Once in awhile I find stuff that is helpful for me on this site but not often. But today I was thinking about virtual losses so I decided I would try a way to use virtual losses since I generally don't use them. I thought the following idea may be helpful. This is not profound or anything and actually quite simple but. . . whatever. I did manage to do pretty well. Here's what you do. I keep my card vertical but you can keep it horizontal and it's the same thing. Might be easier to see vertical.
Just wait a few hands and pick whichever side is actually dominant. The more dominant the better but doesn't matter so much. Just wait for the dominant side to miss at least 2 hands and then bet that same side not to miss the next 4IAR which means that the weak side will not go more than 5IAR. I choose that because 5 IAR (or more) is a fairly infrequent occurrence. If the shoe tends to have a dearth of 2's then you may want to wait for 3 "misses."
Get it? Pretty simple but it's not a flat bet scenario. You got to use some kind of Neg Prog and that's up to you. It could be conservative or aggressive AND you of course can back off anytime you want. It's still a guess and still gambling.
So my shoe started pp BB pp at which time I chose Player as dominant and didn't bet until Player missed two "holes." The shoe continued:
B p BBB pp B p B pppp BB pppp BB pppp BB ppp BB ppp B p BB pppp BB pp BBBB p BB p B p B p B p B
Okay so nice pattern if you follow it OR good Player shoe just betting straight down on Player with a NP (never a bad idea in and of itself). Hindsight is wonderful. One guy won good money on this shoe early and just left. The rest of the players didn't win much at all - maybe broke even. Anyway I was just trying to see a simple way to use virtual losses and wanted to see them in a different light. That is no waiting for a preferred bet placement to lose but simply calling a virtual loss when one side didn't win.
Looks like a decent way to grind out some units without making a lot of bets.
J
Hello, Jimske; nice job on that posted shoe. I played it out as well, and finished up with a +7 using my preferred bet placement strategy. After winning 2-out-of-my first 3 bets, I needed only flat bets (even though I do utilize my Gr8Player's Progression, I never had the need to leave "1-ville", or base, so only flat bets were necessary) the entire shoe.
I feel compelled to add that this shoe was one were I didn't need to await any virtual losses, because my plays were prevalent from the get-go. My virtual loss strategy is designed to get me through the more-difficult periods; this shoe, fortunately, posed no such problem.
Lastly, Jimske, while your example of virtual loss usage is not quite the way I see it or use it, I do like your incorporation of same. Nice job.
As I stated in my prior posts, any virtual loss strategy is better...much better, in fact...than none at all. "None at all" leaves one as a "sitting duck" at the shoe (or portion thereof) where your "nemesis" appears as dominant. The virtual loss strategy and the no-bet option that accompanies it is a very vital part of my arsenal; the patient and disciplined player can and will reap the rewards of such play.
(Sidenote: I'm off to the Borgata Wed thru Fri, I'll catch up with you guys on Sat.) Stay well.
Quote from: gr8player on September 22, 2015, 08:44:56 PM
Hello, Jimske; nice job on that posted shoe. I played it out as well, and finished up with a +7 using my preferred bet placement strategy. After winning 2-out-of-my first 3 bets, I needed only flat bets (even though I do utilize my Gr8Player's Progression, I never had the need to leave "1-ville", or base, so only flat bets were necessary) the entire shoe.
I feel compelled to add that this shoe was one were I didn't need to await any virtual losses, because my plays were prevalent from the get-go. My virtual loss strategy is designed to get me through the more-difficult periods; this shoe, fortunately, posed no such problem.
Lastly, Jimske, while your example of virtual loss usage is not quite the way I see it or use it, I do like your incorporation of same. Nice job.
As I stated in my prior posts, any virtual loss strategy is better...much better, in fact...than none at all. "None at all" leaves one as a "sitting duck" at the shoe (or portion thereof) where your "nemesis" appears as dominant. The virtual loss strategy and the no-bet option that accompanies it is a very vital part of my arsenal; the patient and disciplined player can and will reap the rewards of such play.
(Sidenote: I'm off to the Borgata Wed thru Fri, I'll catch up with you guys on Sat.) Stay well.
The point of my post is to give some kind of basic clear structure for those who want to use virtual losses. So it's virtual losses made simple. Because one needs a specific mechanical bet placement to determine when the virtual losses kick in and since no real explanation of a bet placement is explained it may be difficult for some to figure how to use virtual losses. This example then let's the shoe itself determine the virtual losses. In this simple if one were to use 2 "misses" on P flat bet would yield +7; if used both sides would yield +3. But I don't see this as a flat bet method. On the B side looking for 2 misses we would lose 6 IAR. ON the P side only lose 1 IAR. If you combine the two sides then a prog would lose only 1 IAR the whole shoe so a simple Negative prog would do quite well.
I chose 2 misses because there are, on average, about 9 2 IAR in a shoe so that can give a decent number of potential bets in a shoe. Shoes with a dearth of 2's will be big losers of course.
I think Rolex explained some of his column stuff here where one could then implement virtual losses using a column approach. But otherwise you just got to plug it into your favorite placement.
J
Quote from: Rolex-Watch on September 14, 2015, 05:51:03 PM
In which case, what you look for could be defined, you could define many "what to look for triggers". Then apply conditional statements, such as if this happens (you lose), then you do this (fold yer arms).
What you end up with is repeatable and predictable behavior, er some might call it MECHANICAL[smiley]cps/noway.gif[/smiley]
Of course you could share with all your friends, what it is you look for, but never have and never will, I can only speculate why [smiley]toto/d200712191811061584.gif[/smiley]
I bring this up not because Gr8 is obligated to share but since he posted his preferred bet placement:
Quote from: gr8player on September 22, 2015, 08:44:56 PM
I played it out as well, and finished up with a +7 using my preferred bet placement strategy. After winning 2-out-of-my first 3 bets, I needed only flat bets (even though I do utilize my Gr8Player's Progression, I never had the need to leave "1-ville", or base, so only flat bets were necessary) the entire shoe.
Mechanical? How can it not be?
I understand the concept of V-Loses. I reckon it similar to the depreciation of an asset to your income but with opposite affect.
V-losses may lower your V-game income and increase how you feel about yourself, were as, depreciation may lower your reported income and increase how you feel about yourself. In either case, you can't really put your hands on it.
The question for me is V-losses value.
I can only see V-losses having value if I know, in the beginning, how may losses there will be in a game.
V-Losses that's great -vs- V-wins oh shucks , I try to have this puzzle solved before arriving at the casino, for me it's less stressful.
Quote from: Jimske on September 22, 2015, 01:02:09 PM
The importance of structure aside. Absolutely no guarantees but one cannot deny statistics and that certain conditions are, in fact, rare and/or ocurr less than others. The problem as I see it lies in the betting structure. Progressive vs. flat.
Take flat first. Let's use asymbac idea of actually being able to ascertain a specific condition. So we are making the assumption that waiting on this condition is akin to virtual losses (betting). This condition must have such a high positive advantage that would allow making one flat bet a practical endeavor even if it only appeared once every, say 150 decisions. To be practically profitable that advantage would have to be pretty high to make it worthwhile to overcome the variance problem even with a steep unit size. How much? I don't know. Maybe greater than 55%. Enter $ per hour as the final decider.
Progressive betting then poses the same problem with or without using virtual losses. We need to win more of the small bets to overcome the occasional big bets which we lose when the variance kicks in or table max kicks in. If we can eliminate table max (virtually or not) then it's just a matter of having enough bankroll (and stomach) to wait out a win. Of course we must overcome the nemesis of commission.
So the whole idea of virtual losses is only effective if we have a true advantage. Otherwise we end up back at the 50-50 game.
Does than mean that virtual losses have no place? No, because we are gambling. Either we are actually gambling on a theory that the game is NOT 50-50 or that we will be able to extend our luck through statistical limitations. Many believe the former is true and if it is then using virtual losses to extend our progression will have a true advantage. If not then one may still go a long time before getting burned.
That's a perfect summary about the virtual losses topic, imo.
At roulette there's no point to get a sort of advantage by applying a virtual losses philosophy.
Any spin is totally independent from the previous and next one without any doubt.
More importantly and obviously, statistical long term roulette data won't show any significant difference from the expected outcomes any 50/50 game will produce.
Conversely baccarat is an infinite game produced by finite single games each having shifted mathematical results. We don't know when and how much such shifting factor will take place or not, but we surely know it will. Soon or later.
The same happens about the 50.68/49.32 BP ratio that will be easily disregarded on very short terms, yet it will slowly reach this mathematical fraction with 100% accuracy. Even better is assessing HOW such discrepancies will take place in more complex pattern forms, a thing that undeniably will tend to lower the variance.
Of course in the short run casinos will suffer from the "lucky" players getting the best of it by low term variance. We know very well that in the long term the 99.9% of bac players will be sure losers and not by a mere 1.24% degree on the capital invested on the game (assuming only BP bets).
We should act on the same terms any casino will be happy to have us as customers, now on an opposite side of thought.
That is trying to "lose" on the short terms and ending up as winners on long term.
And one of the best thing we can do to accomplish such result is to let some virtual losses go without any actual betting, expecially if long term statistical data will confirm that the next more SLIGHT likely outcome after some losing spots will be a winning hand. And it takes some time those possible profitable spots will showing up. Many shoes won't offer any betting opportunity.
As RW acutely posted, we don't want to get multiple and easy winning spots, instead we want to preserve our bankroll at most because the rule is to lose it as we cannot expect too much from a game which returns us 0.9894 and 0.9876 for every BP placed bet.
Finally, the game is mathematically unbeatable, right?
Well.
Let's set up a long term table where the players seated are gr8player, soxfan, HBS, ezmark, noregret, Jimskie, me and, why not, Rolex Watch and some others.
I'm 100% sure that we won't be very welcome by any casino.
as.
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on September 23, 2015, 09:46:04 PM
That's a perfect summary about the virtual losses topic, imo.
Let's set up a long term table where the players seated are gr8player, soxfan, HBS, ezmark, noregret, Jimskie, me and, why not, Rolex Watch and some others.
I'm 100% sure that we won't be very welcome by any casino.
as.
While I have had some eye in the sky put me in the spotlight at several casinos during my incredible runs, I don't think a seat should be reserved for me next to all the greats mentioned above. I can't say without any doubts that I will come ahead in the LONG RUN but my approach is definitely slightly better than most people. As far as I know, all 7 or so of the casinos that I go to have their doors wide open to welcome me.
Quote from: NoRegret on September 23, 2015, 10:37:21 PM
While I have had some eye in the sky put me in the spotlight at several casinos during my incredible runs, I don't think a seat should be reserved for me next to all the greats mentioned above. I can't say without any doubts that I will come ahead in the LONG RUN but my approach is definitely slightly better than most people. As far as I know, all 7 or so of the casinos that I go to have their doors wide open to welcome me.
As long as you have a similar approach to mine you cannot lose, even itlr :-)
And yeah, casinos are very happy to get our action as the game cannot be mathematically beaten.
Unfortunately for them, some bac spots are very vulnerable as not every hand will be "randomly" placed.
At least this is what optimistic players want to believe. Expecially after having noticed that by some magical reasons their bets are more right than wrong. Slighty, of course. We do not want to believe in miracles.
as.
Virtual losses doesn't really mean anything, except giving the player who is doing it a psychological satisfaction that their way of playing is premium than the chinese who bet every hand. Given that we are all gambling that psychological satisfaction can be the wall between winning that session and losing it.
Waiting for a trigger to happen (which is in essence the virtual loss is all about, it's a trigger to place your bet) is an idea that is as flawed as asking the sun to rise from the west. I am not a math person, but whatever people say, I strongly believe that unless you put money on the table and put money on the lost bets, virtual loss is nothing.
As a concept, it is very similar to someone taking few hands from yesterday to decide what to bet on the first hand for today.
Thinking of it, does anyone here can say with confidence that I will see a minimum of at least 5 bankers in a shoe? Can anyone limit the worst that can happen to a Banker or a player outcome in a shoe?
Quote from: Missmusibat on September 24, 2015, 11:06:32 AM
Thinking of it, does anyone here can say with confidence that I will see a minimum of at least 5 bankers in a shoe? Can anyone limit the worst that can happen to a Banker or a player outcome in a shoe?
Assuming 70 BP decisions per shoe, we need a 7.87 sr deviation not to get at least 5 B hands in any single shoe. (something similar to the happening of a 62 streak appearance)
Of course it could happen but I tend to discard such possibility. :-)
as.
Quote from: alrelax on September 24, 2015, 02:57:46 PM
I seriously (SERIOUSLY) think the OP meant a 5 streak banker, not a total of less than 5 banker hands in a shoe!? However, I could be wrong and maybe he did mean that.
Sorry, i didn't mean streak. I meant number of bankers (absolute).
Quote from: Missmusibat on September 24, 2015, 11:05:21 AM
Waiting for a trigger to happen (which is in essence the virtual loss is all about, it's a trigger to place your bet) is an idea that is as flawed as asking the sun to rise from the west. I am not a math person, but whatever people say, I strongly believe that unless you put money on the table and put money on the lost bets, virtual loss is nothing.
That's true. As long as we won't get an economical outcome from our play, talking about no bet situations it's a sort of gambling nonsense.
In reality, baccarat provides some features other gambling games don't have.
For example once the cards are ready to be dealt, we know for sure that that shoe will form a definite 70 hands pattern nobody can alter.
Differently to bj, we could bet all, many, some, few or zero hands, entering the shoe whenever we want.
So it might be interesting to evaluate what's happening without spending one cent. Expecially knowing that the game is restricted in many ways by more strenght than in other gambling areas.
Even though it may sound useless, we know that per every certain amount of shoes we'll get a B side almost composed by streaks and very few singles, a thing that on the opposite P side will happen at a far lower degree (for obvious reasons).
Another example is registering the shoes when at least three B streaks will come out in six betting attempts. We are pretty sure this scenario will present within a fair definite percentage of the total shoes, expecially (that's very important) when considering consecutive shoes.
No guarantees to get that, still this statistical finding could put us in a better position than perfect independent games dictate.
And there are many many more patterns to look for. And imo, more complex is the expected event and more delayed is its apperance and higher will be the probability to encounter such situation.
Again according to my data, more complex and more likely is a given pattern and lower will be the variance.
This perspective supported by statistical data is "forced" to utilize the apperance of virtual losses (VL) as well as the presentation of virtual winnings (VW).
Besides a possible edge on rare situations, we know that to be ahead of the game we either must let go some losses without betting and/or to wait the presentation of some winnings distribution to start the betting, because no one MM can control the "frequent" outcomes.
Imo one of the best thing we can do playing baccarat is not to hope to get immediate more likely outcomes, instead to patiently wait that those events will cross some "unexpected" lines and the more we select some unordinary dispositions the better will tend to be our future results.
Not forgetting that baccarat is an asymmetrical game so the upcoming results will be asymmetrical placed even if at a rapid glance sometimes they appear equally distributed.
That means that some rare, unlikely, silly, obnoxious events we've chosen to label as "negative" ones could easily come out in clusters.
It's our duty to not fall into this trap.
as.
Quote from: alrelax on September 25, 2015, 12:51:54 PM
You know, I actualy sat down late last night and re-read the whole thread here. First I tried to correlate what a few were saying or trying to say. I gathered they were pretty much convinced that sitting down and watching, plotting and waiting for some magical moment(s) while (WHILE) losing their virtual wagers was giving them some sort of edge.
Fast Forward.................Boom. Hell, you are doing nothing different then we did years ago. Before all the free hands, before all the heads down in the hands on the rails, before all the know-it-alls, before all the midi and Macau poop. When the real baccarat was played, with the shoe travelling and the 14 players and 3 dealers at each table.
We did the exact same thing(s) you are referring to. We sat out, we watched, we took our bellies off the rail and stopped wagering when the shoe turn bad!!! We did not sit there and play every single hand out of 80! Almost all the players played about 1/2 or 3/4 the shoe with the best shoes. We did not correlate virtual wagering and attempt to convert it into some kind of statistical power.
When the shoe was bad, we stopped. When the shoe was strong or had anything to following or play against we were game. WE played the game with conviction and belief but we did not grind and grind and grind and sit inevitably waiting for one or two wagers. If (IF) that was going on, that was over at the mini bac tables on the main floor.
There was lots of voodoo and lots of strange beliefs, I will admit. But no one that I knew sat there and plotted their vitual losses into some kind of positive fake gain of nothing. What you are insinuating with the virtual loses, we accomplished with taking a break, eating dinner, going to a show, going to get a massage, switching casinos, etc. IN other words, we didn't sit there like stuck pigs. 8)
The hits from BIIIIIIIIIG al (LOL) keep coming. Thank you! I was beginning to think that you may go away. And I was just going to go and wash my car! Look what I would have missed.
BTW, BIG al, in case you are wondering, I do see you have PM'd me a couple times. But no I just laugh and don't read them. Reason is I got no interest in having a personal back and forth with you. I think our public relationship is just fine, thank you very much.
There is so much in this post hard to know where to start! But I got to say I just LOVE the idea of only playing when the shoe is strong and when it is weak just go to a show to get your virtual losses out of the way! Beautiful, you can't make this stuff up!
Ahhhhh, the good ole' days, huh, al? When men were men and Bacc players were Bacc players! You "been there done that" and you "did the exact same thing(s) you are referring to." Folks here are just so playing catch up to your vast experience. You never needed any "statistical" power! When the shoe was bad you just stopped, went had a meal (on the house of course) and came back when the shoe was good!
QuoteThere was lots of voodoo and lots of strange beliefs, I will admit.
Really, BIG al? You don't say or . . . maybe you just did?
Things have really gone to hell haven't they BIG al? All these "stuck pigs" with their "heads down."
You're such a 8) guy BIG al. Such an inspiration.
Hey BIG al! Don't you think you should list some more of your possessions so we can all have something more to aspire to than a wife, a baby, an Escalade and a few trips to Vegas? What? No house in the country or an apartment on the upper east side? Don't let us down BIG al!
Quote from: alrelax on September 25, 2015, 12:51:54 PM
When the shoe was bad, we stopped. When the shoe was strong or had anything to following or play against we were game. WE played the game with conviction and belief but we did not grind and grind and grind and sit inevitably waiting for one or two wagers. If (IF) that was going on, that was over at the mini bac tables on the main floor.
There was lots of voodoo and lots of strange beliefs, I will admit. But no one that I knew sat there and plotted their vitual losses into some kind of positive fake gain of nothing. What you are insinuating with the virtual loses, we accomplished with taking a break, eating dinner, going to a show, going to get a massage, switching casinos, etc. IN other words, we didn't sit there like stuck pigs.
8)
Jimski beat me to it. What exactly is a bad shoe? No such thing as a bad shoe, only the way you approached it, isn't hindsight wonderful?
A lack of streaks could be bad for the parlaying supermen back in the day, yet a bonanza for the OLD player (not an ageism comment BTW). Knowing when to come back, batter those streaks, that streaks were happening on some other table, in another joint and continued after you noticed em, golly jes, you fella's must have had physic powers.
Strange voodoo belief's! Good to hear nothing's really changed, the good old reganomic days, when balls were big and little else mattered. Now the former superhero's spend more time on gambling forums reminiscing than they actually do in a casino, the closest they can get to fulfilling their jollies without risking any real cash.
What you kinda skipped around, missed,
failed to grasp, regarding
"virtual losses", sure there is
no real advantage, over any given hand, over a series of hands is highly contentious, yet
there is also no disadvantage, I'll repeat that,
no disadvantage. That means, for the player staring at the score-board, or score cards, those trying to tune in to signals from part of their anatomy that rests against on the rail (whatever that is), it is all the same, equal. But in fairness to those players blessed with godly physic skills that can sense when streaks are due, I suppose if a run continues to 8 from a prior 7, it doesn't really matter if the table high fives yet again. Oh I long for the good old day's. [smiley]skype/dance.gif[/smiley][smiley]skype/ninja.gif[/smiley][smiley]skype/dance.gif[/smiley]
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.
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on September 25, 2015, 09:55:24 PM
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.
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on September 25, 2015, 09:55:24 PM
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.
Quote from: Rolex-Watch on September 25, 2015, 10:57:54 PM
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.
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.....
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
Quote from: HunchBacShrimp on September 27, 2015, 10:33:14 PM
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.
Excellent postQuote from: HunchBacShrimp on September 27, 2015, 10:33:14 PM
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...
Quote from: HunchBacShrimp on September 27, 2015, 10:33:14 PM
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?
Quote from: HunchBacShrimp on September 27, 2015, 10:33:14 PM
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.
Quote from: HunchBacShrimp on September 27, 2015, 10:33:14 PMIMO 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.
In my experience different bets selections provide different w/l cluster with the confine of the over all 50-50 proposition, hey hey.
Quote from: soxfan on September 29, 2015, 02:02:28 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on September 27, 2015, 11:38:13 PM
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
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
Quote from: soxfan on September 29, 2015, 02:02:28 AM
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
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.
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.
Quote from: HunchBacShrimp on October 01, 2015, 12:22:42 AM
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
Quote from: HunchBacShrimp on September 30, 2015, 10:58:48 PM
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.
These kind of approaches are contentious and IMO seriously flawed, because the cards are devoid of any memory, it may be VL's for you and VW's for somebody else.
Ever lost betting Equilibrium v's UnBalanced for a 12 hand sequence, or 8 hand Birthday Paradox pairs, only a 10% chance of that happening for the latter and 22.6% for the former. So you've been hit a few times, so you decide, I'll wait for VL's and then take the bet. Wait for it to lose first, it's got to reduce your variance right? Well I suppose so, only it loses again, and again.
I've played those shoes were pair Birthday paradox have lost 4 times out of 5 possible grids in a single shoe, how can this be when mathematically you have a 90% chance of winning and only a 10% chance of not wining a bet (that particular shoe is posted on this forum in a bayer thread). This happens 4 times out of 5? Or you play a shoe were every 12 hand sequence is in Equilibrium for the entire shoe except the last 12 hand block (cheating, skulduggery)? How can these mathematical phenomena be possible? Not only is your head doing cartwheels, also include the monetary damage that has just occurred, you really need to experience this BS as it greatly opens your mind to recognising similar BS, especially that which is posted on gambling forums.
Perhaps win for a month playing a particular method, after which continual get your as$ handed to you on a plate
(people have a real problem understanding the concept of; right & wrong side of a bell-curve), when you've experienced this often enough, the penny drops, you're playing a game of chance and what you do is no superior or inferior than what anybody else is doing other than the signature of the losing pattern.
Quote from: Rolex-Watch on October 01, 2015, 09:52:31 AM
These kind of approaches are contentious and IMO seriously flawed, because the cards are devoid of any memory, it may be VL's for you and VW's for somebody else.
No, not really....you see, the "VW's for somebody else" do not matter, only the "VL's for you" are of any statistical importance.
Quote from: Rolex-Watch on October 01, 2015, 09:52:31 AM
Perhaps win for a month playing a particular method, after which continual get your as$ handed to you on a plate (people have a real problem understanding the concept of; right & wrong side of a bell-curve), when you've experienced this often enough, the penny drops, you're playing a game of chance and what you do is no superior or inferior than what anybody else is doing other than the signature of the losing pattern.
Ahh, but it's that all-important "other than the signature of the losing pattern"....therein lies the rub, my friend.
You see, in order to break down this game of 50/50 chances into a, shall I say, "beatable" one, one must develop a bet selection process that mitigates the damage from their nemesis and its losing pattern(s). Or, in other words, a relatively controlled variance, so that we can, with some semblance of confidence, make our play as profitable as possible.
My play, in short, needs a relatively high strike rate combined with relatively short losing jags. Plain and simple, my play is not designed to capture a single win out of three or four or five attempts, and my money management cannot support any such notion. So I need to be right more than I am wrong, or, alternatively, I need my losing jags to be confined to certain parameters, otherwise I am doomed for failure.
And so the birth of my "virtual loss" strategy, as so the birth of my preferred bet selection process, and so the birth of my money management progression. All intended to get me to my win goals....conservative as they are....as efficiently as possible.
I don't buy in for any "12-hour marathons"; rather, I'm there to get from point A to point B as efficiently as possible. The off-shoot of that philosophy allows me to play for higher units, hence the conservative win goals. While I've always stated that one needs to keep their unit sizes within their own personal "comfort zone", it is just as important to make sure that their play is "worthwhile", as that will see that player accepting any and all wins as gratifying.
And so it all works rather well for me. That does not mean that my sort of play is for everyone, nor does it mean that my play is the right way and anyone else's is the wrong way. I play to my personal strengths; I would suggest to anyone else to play to their's.
Experience has taught me exactly what I want from this game and exactly what I need from this game; it was only after that awareness that I was able to develop the procedure to attain it. Now, lest anyone think any differently, while these words are relatively easy to say and to type, the process was (and still is, in fact) an arduous one. One must take this game very seriously in order to become a serious player, know that. I am ever aware, at every single turn-of-the-cards, that I am but one bad bet away from blowing this whole thing to pieces. And so I remain steadfastly consistent, patient, and disciplined.
As always, I wish it for all of you. Stay well.
The gr88888888one comes through, again, hey hey.
Thanks, Soxster, always appreciated.
Your post in this thread regarding "tailoring your money management process to the average w/l clusters of your bet selection process" is spot-on as well, an observation that resonates well among all serious players. Great job....and stay well.
Quote from: gr8player on October 01, 2015, 08:52:29 PM
My play, in short, needs a relatively high strike rate combined with relatively short losing jags. Plain and simple, my play is not designed to capture a single win out of three or four or five attempts, and my money management cannot support any such notion. So I need to be right more than I am wrong, or, alternatively, I need my losing jags to be confined to certain parameters, otherwise I am doomed for failure.
This is anyone's play. All in proportion of course. Super generic and can absolutely be applied to anyone gambling.
Quote from: gr8player on Yesterday at 03:52:29 pmMy play, in short, needs a relatively high strike rate combined with relatively short losing jags. Plain and simple, my play is not designed to capture a single win out of three or four or five attempts, and my money management cannot support any such notion. So I need to be right more than I am wrong, or, alternatively, I need my losing jags to be confined to certain parameters, otherwise I am doomed for failure.
Quote from: alrelax on October 02, 2015, 02:16:42 PM
This is anyone's play. All in proportion of course. Super generic and can absolutely be applied to anyone gambling.
You'll forgive me for pointing out, Al,, that your statement is only true if a player's strategy is to win more hands than lose as Gr8 has intimated. A player may lose more hands than win and still come out ahead if the winning bets are significantly larger than the small ones. So super wrong, Al.
Quote from: Jimske on October 02, 2015, 07:00:24 PM
Quote from: gr8player on Yesterday at 03:52:29 pmMy play, in short, needs a relatively high strike rate combined with relatively short losing jags. Plain and simple, my play is not designed to capture a single win out of three or four or five attempts, and my money management cannot support any such notion. So I need to be right more than I am wrong, or, alternatively, I need my losing jags to be confined to certain parameters, otherwise I am doomed for failure.
You'll forgive me for pointing out, Al,, that your statement is only true if a player's strategy is to win more hands than lose as Gr8 has intimated. A player may lose more hands than win and still come out ahead if the winning bets are significantly larger than the small ones. So super wrong, Al.
I will never post again due to tocking assholes like this.
I never ever said a player would or could win or lose more or less.
Again, tock you.
Quote from: alrelax on October 02, 2015, 02:16:42 PM
This is anyone's play. All in proportion of course. Super generic and can absolutely be applied to anyone gambling.
Oh Al don't be like that. I'm just pointing out that Gr8 way of winning more hands than losing is not "anyone's play." as you suggested. Don't get upset with me because you misunderstood what he is saying.
QuoteI never ever said a player would or could win or lose more or less.
It's prob ably me but I can't understand this sentence. Perhaps someone could translate.
Bwaaaaaaaaaaa, the alrelax is a real moustache Pete, hey hey!
Quote from: alrelax on October 02, 2015, 07:12:50 PM
I will never post again due to tocking assholes like this.
Damn now how am I going to keep abreast with spillage clean-ups in New York State?
Quote from: gr8player on October 01, 2015, 08:52:29 PM
No, not really....you see, the "VW's for somebody else" do not matter, only the "VL's for you" are of any statistical importance.
You missed the point, obviously a person winning or losing is relevant to them, however what you do, could be VL's for you, yet VW's for somebody else, which suggests the way a person records a shoe gives them some weird advantage. So if I record a shoe using a 3Col template I could see loads of VL's therfore I should bet, but if record a shoe using a 4Col template there might be no VL's. Maybe I should record a single shoe 10 ways or more looking for VL's. It's all Gambles Fallacy that exists only in the mind driving the pen..
Quote from: gr8player on October 01, 2015, 08:52:29 PMI don't buy in for any "12-hour marathons"
Neither do I, but sometimes I start losing (as you would know gr8) and have to fight back.
Quote from: gr8player on October 01, 2015, 08:52:29 PM~allows me to play for higher units, hence the conservative win goals. While I've always stated that one needs to keep their unit sizes within their own personal "comfort zone", it is just as important to make sure that their play is "worthwhile", as that will see that player accepting any and all wins as gratifying.
Of course on the internet we can be anything and claim anything, like your $400 per hand, I have reams of your quotes over the years gr8 were you twist, turn, squirm and contradict your claims, hell did't you recently post, right here on this very forum now your playing for a living you've lowered your chip level, damn it must of been very BIg, HUGE in fact if you lowered it and yet you play higher units Wow, I might see you in Macau soon. Oops I forgot this is the internet we can all be Walter Mitty's behind a keyboard.
Quote from: gr8player on October 01, 2015, 08:52:29 PM
My play, in short, needs a relatively high strike rate combined with relatively short losing jags. Plain and simple, my play is not designed to capture a single win out of three or four or five attempts, and my money management cannot support any such notion. So I need to be right more than I am wrong, or, alternatively, I need my losing jags to be confined to certain parameters, otherwise I am doomed for failure.
If there was any truth or logic in that statement you would have retired years ago and not turned down a WoV $10,0000 challenge. Anybody can win, anybody can lose as you well know. Magical bet selections that provide more wins than losses?
Well at least you have the attention of the gullible, I suggest those stateside staking out the Borgata and see for y'all self, cos' you ain't never gonna read here. Easy to spot, arms folded when not betting. frantic record keeper betting $25 per hand...
[smiley]aes/brb.png[/smiley]
Quote from: Rolex-Watch on October 02, 2015, 10:43:42 PM
It's all Gambles Fallacy that exists only in the mind driving the pen..
Painting with a rather large brush whenever the Gamblers Fallacy or the House Edge is mentioned; I'd like to have figured you to be a bit above that commonality. Wow, it's a wonder we play the game at all.
Quote from: Rolex-Watch on October 02, 2015, 10:43:42 PM
I have reams of your quotes over the years gr8...
Hmm...I find that both strange and amusing at the same time...I, myself, have exactly ZERO of yours.
Quote from: Rolex-Watch on October 02, 2015, 10:43:42 PM
Magical bet selections that provide more wins than losses?
Nothing "magical" about it, my friend. Rather than your obvious petty jealousy/envy, why not put your efforts into something positive, like developing a better, more efficient bet selection process, perhaps? It's doable, but you've got to put in the work, and then you need the patience, discipline and composure to put it into action and profit....nah, come to think of it, it would take a whole lotta "magic" for you to get it. You just aren't cut out for it, and I'm most likely wasting my time even responding to your nonsense. Take care.
Quote from: gr8player on October 03, 2015, 04:54:23 PM
Hmm...I find that both strange and amusing at the same time...I, myself, have exactly ZERO of yours.
Nope, you memorize a lo of what I've said, which is why you borrow, steal many of my phrases, I avoid myself that pain if I want to highlight your contradictions.
Quote from: gr8player on October 03, 2015, 04:54:23 PM
Nothing "magical" about it, my friend.
Only those willing to stake-out Borgata will ever know. The Walter style posts, I'm sure might entice somebody to do so.
Quote from: gr8player on October 03, 2015, 04:54:23 PMYou just aren't cut out for it, and I'm most likely wasting my time even responding to your nonsense.
Cut out for frequenting the tables in three different countries recently, how about you!!
"A tight bet selection that wins more than it loses", the perfect example self delusionment, have you discovered / invented a new form of maths? Because there is so such thing as a 'tight bet selection' and no bet selection 'wins more than it loses", all bet selections experience swings which can result in deluded thinking. No worries, face to face contract with likewise delusional clowns, helps me better understand "somebody rated to win in a casino computer system". >> [smiley]aes/brb.png[/smiley] <<
A "tight bet selection" is one with a tight variance, where the swings, both up and down (more on that later), are relatively manageable.
A "tight bet selection that wins more than it loses" is one where, BECAUSE the variance is manageable, allows the player to adjust their bet sizes at the most opportune times in order to facilitate recoup and/or profit.
What about that do you not get? Is it over your head? Can you not understand how the adults (read: the serious players) play this game?
IF you do not understand, feel free to ask questions. IF you do not CARE to understand, just hold your tongue and go play somewhere else. Either way, try to be more constructive around here than destructive.
Now, back to the "more on that later" note from my opening sentence:
Variance play can be rather easy, and it can be rather tough. Easy when it's downside is controlled, and a minor bet sizing adjustment puts us into full recoup and/or profit. The tough part? The tough part is what I'm going through now....a runaway upswing in my variance.
Now, I can hear the groans from the other side of my computer...."you're not complaining about winning too much, are you gr8player?" Answer: No, I'm not. I'm actually complaining about winning too little. I'll explain:
The past few weeks have seen my strike rates go so well, and my variance so high, that I have never needed more than "2-ville" in my Gr8Player's Progression. In fact, if I wanted to wait it out that long, I'd be winning just by flat-betting over the last few weeks. But I use my conservative prog just to get either my recoup or my win as efficiently as possible. I can do that with confidence because my numbers (read: stats) prove it so.
But, because of my ever-rising variance, I have lowered my base bet. Let me repeat that: Because I have, in essence, been doing so well recently, I HAVE LOWERED MY BASE BET. Why? Because of the impending correction. I feel as if it simply is a matter of time; my bet selection process cannot possibly perform this well. But, as I await the drop-off, I'm now making 40% less dollars than I normally would with my usual betting unit every time I win. And I haven't lost in a while. (I know, I know...what a terrible problem to have...it should happen for all of us, right?)
But, seriously, here's the rub, and here's where it gets a bit dicey: They say (and we all know who THEY are) that a bet selection method will rise AND fall in equal proportion. Which basically is saying that as well as it's performing now is exactly HOW BAD it could be performing in the near future....and that, my friends, is a notion that does not sit well with me at all.
My only solace is that my method is more a "process" than it is a simple "selection" method, and maybe that will exclude it from the inevitable downfall. I don't know. But, what I do know is that I'll continue to be ever-vigilant of any real variance down-swing and try to bail at the most opportune time. In the meantime, I'll continue starting all sessions with my lowered unit size at least until my variance adjusts downward somewhat. I really have no choice in the matter, my strike rates cannot remain this high forever.
And so I adjust my play accordingly.
And I hope for the best.
As always, for all of us. Stay well.
Quote from: gr8player on October 03, 2015, 09:08:10 PM
:footinmouth:A "tight bet selection" is one with a tight variance, where the swings, both up and down (more on that later), are relatively manageable.
A "tight bet selection that wins more than it loses" is one where, BECAUSE the variance is manageable, allows the player to adjust their bet sizes at the most opportune times in order to facilitate recoup and/or profit.
Post one example, doesn't necessarily have to be reflective of your current mode of play, rather any that makes sense of those comments which proves that you're not just another semi-intelligent friendly guy with lots of cyber-friends who isn't seriously deluded when it comes to choosing how to play random 50-50 outcomes.
In fact re-reading your waffle, you mention be wary of an impeding down-turn, also not betting as big as you liked, so that says it all right there.
Quote from: gr8player on October 03, 2015, 09:08:10 PM
What about that do you not get? Is it over your head? Can you not understand how the adults (read: the serious players) play this game?
[smiley]skype/giggle.gif[/smiley] No not over my head, just impossible and lunacy to suggest otherwise. So even you will be going on an overseas trip soon? Financed from Baccarat earnings? Nope, ok how about Vegas? Nope, ahh well, the http://www.burjkhalifa.ae/en/the-tower/ (http://www.burjkhalifa.ae/en/the-tower/) is worth a ride and the https://www.marinabaysands.com/ (https://www.marinabaysands.com/) shopping complex is architecturally very spectacular, https://www.skycityauckland.co.nz/attractions/sky-tower/ (https://www.skycityauckland.co.nz/attractions/sky-tower/) lost it's appeal after a 40mph lift ride in Dubai, what's it's like taking the toll road to AC to play some
serious Baccarat, do you chant mantra's on the drive down? [smiley]skype/laughing.gif[/smiley]
Quote from: gr8player on October 03, 2015, 09:08:10 PM
In fact, if I wanted to wait it out that long, I'd be winning just by flat-betting over the last few weeks. But I use my conservative prog just to get either my recoup or my win as efficiently as possible. I can do that with confidence because my numbers (read: stats) prove it so.
How does it prove anything? My recent strike rates are (read: averages) 65%, 72%, 55%, 68%, 83%, 84%, so please explain how typing behind a keyboard proves anything? It doesn't prove a damn thing, I could have just as easily typed, 44%, 33%, 40%, 25%, 22% to make people laugh instead of fulfilling a personal urge of needing readers to swoon over every word I post
[hint]. Thinking otherwise really is just demonstrating yet another symptom of serious delusionment. Expecting people to 'play the game', believe without a single shred of proof (read:evidence), because you
call everybody friend,, wish everybody well.
Should this be renamed the hot-air forum, who can pis$ highest up the wall without actually posting anything at all!! Provide some logical sense, one example that explains that anything you post is not another "ohh look at me" rant from another "too far gone casino fruit cake", thankfully on this forum you have spared us the tales of the waitresses, parking attendants, computer systems, being approached by authors!!! [smiley]skype/giggle.gif[/smiley]
Hey, just remembered, didn't you members of this forum that you were going to produce a PDF many months ago? You should have plenty of time on your hands now. Look forward to it [smiley]skype/giggle.gif[/smiley][smiley]aim/wink65.gif[/smiley]Bob
So good to see the john-O-gr8888888888888one feud goin strong now for over ten years. I'd pony up some serious cake to be able to see them two cats sittin at the same baccarats table, hey hey.
I feel compelled to resurrect this thread because virtual losses are such a vital part of my play:
I scope out a table before I buy in, as I'm quite sure most players do. I am looking for, and would prefer to see, "virtual losses" to my preferred bet selection process.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not adamant about it; sometimes I buy in to a new shoe, where, obviously, there are no prior results. But, if at all possible, I do prefer that there are some virtual losses (even just a couple) before I commence my play.
Of course, the flip side of all that are virtual wins; I will never buy into any shoe that is showing my preferred bets at a plus 3 or more. Never, ever. I wasn't there for the wedding, and so I ain't hangin' out for any funeral. I'll simply opt for a different table to buy into.
Now, why is this all-so-important to me? One word answer: Variance. My preferred bet selection process carries a very tight variance; tighter than most of you could ever imagine any 50/50 bet selection process to be. And so virtual losses....if placed correctly for me....improves my chances for a "plus" (read: winning) session dramatically. I mean, almost to the point where flat-betting is all I'd need. That is why they are so important for me.
Please understand that I do not bet every hand; heck, I average only 15 bets per 60-hand shoe. So I bet roughly one of every four decisions on average. So each bet, if nothing else, "feels" as if it carries more weight. But, because I developed this mode of play all by my lonesome, I am fine with that, because it was the only way that I could get my bet selection process to the tight variance that it is today.
So each virtual loss carries weight with me. And so I prefer to see them before I commence my real betting. So I'll choose the table that is showing some prior losses whenever that does become an option for me. All done in the name of variance; a variance as tight as possible in order to keep my bets as manageable as possible.
And so on and on it goes, as I continue to grind out the wins.
As always, I wish it for all of you. Stay well.
how did u do in baragota gr8player. tell me did u ever play in nyc resorts they have electronic barracat. If not explain why you would not play there. is it possible to win there in nyc resorts.
Hello, Georgebac, I trust all is well with you.
Yes, I have played in NYC's Resorts World casino, but I did not like it. I simply did not trust the "strange" results that were coming from that "computerized" baccarat game. Believe me, I wish I could have trusted it; I live but 20 minutes from there as opposed to the roughly 3-hour weekly trek to Atlantic City. But I cannot and will not play where I simply don't feel as if I'm getting a fair game.
Take care.
Quote from: soxfan on October 03, 2015, 11:02:08 PM
So good to see the john-O-gr8888888888888one feud goin strong now for over ten years. I'd pony up some serious cake to be able to see them two cats sittin at the same baccarats table, hey hey.
hahahahha. YWh but how bout throwing me and Big Al in to the mix. the 4 of us at the same table!!!!!!!!!!!! Priceless!
Quote from: gr8player on October 26, 2015, 01:16:38 PM
Hello, Georgebac, I trust all is well with you.
Yes, I have played in NYC's Resorts World casino, but I did not like it. I simply did not trust the "strange" results that were coming from that "computerized" baccarat game. Believe me, I wish I could have trusted it; I live but 20 minutes from there as opposed to the roughly 3-hour weekly trek to Atlantic City. But I cannot and will not play where I simply don't feel as if I'm getting a fair game.
Take care.
I was there once and didn't play. A little two skeevey for my taste and lots of smoke and crowds but the game is a shuffled game, opens and closes so I don't see why it should be any different than a live casino. Not really a computer game on the main floor though there is, I recall, a computer game available there.
Quote from: Rolex-Watch on October 03, 2015, 10:53:01 PM
Post one example, doesn't necessarily have to be reflective of your current mode of play,
I'd like to see one myself. Yes, this is over my head for certain. I get what tight bets are - small spread. But got no clue what a tight variance is. I mean after the fact yeah but . . . So today I had a tight variance losing only 3 IAR twice in 101 bets. The other day I lost 7 out of the first 9 bets in a shoe. Does than mean a loose variance? It's all hindsight, isn't it?
Hello, Jimske. You, obviously, had a very good day if your max losing streak was only 3 into over 100 bets placed. Great job!
You then went on to recall another recent session where you lost 7 out of 9 bets. It happens; winning 2 bets while losing 7, shouldn't happen often, but, still, it happens.
One question: Do you happen to remember the outcome of your next few bets placed after that losing jag? I'd be willing to bet that it was a positive outcome, that you won probably 3 out of the next 4 bets placed.
And, I say I'd be "willing to bet" because, my friend, that's exactly how I'd have played it....I'd have gone to "2-ville" in my Gr8Player's Progression seeking a rather efficient recoup of those immediate losses.
And that's, basically, what variance play is all about....knowing the average limits of both your downs (read: losses) and, yes, even your ups (read: wins). In fact, as a sidenote here Jimske, if I were you, I'd "tread lightly" (read: lower my base unit size) after that last wonderful session of yours, where you didn't lose more than 3 in-a-row over your 100 bets placed. I'd be on the lookout for a downward variance correction, and, again, would bet slightly lesser units so that I'd have "more room" for any impending recoup necessitation.
So, no, variance is "not all hindsight". In fact, quite the contrary....good, solid, and correct variance play is all about "anticipation" of results, not hindsight. The player that keeps their vital statistics at hand is the player best-armed to take full advantage of their own variance swings, either down or up. I would not nor could not approach this game any differently if long term success was my goal.
As always, I wish it for all of you, and keep up the good work, Jimske.
Hmm, everyone says I shouldn't be so hard on people.
Well, this is what pours in every day.
Should I delete Maverick4?
AD