+ Register

[soxfan]

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.

[gr8player]

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.

[gr8player]

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.

[gr8player]

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.

[Jimske]

I 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

[greenguy]

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

[Rolex-Watch]

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.           

[Jimske]

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.

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

[gr8player]

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.

[gr8player]

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.

[gr8player]

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.

[Jimske]

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!   

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]

[Jimske]

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.

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.

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.

[Rolex-Watch]

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.  .

   

[Jimske]

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.