+ Register

[Rolex-Watch]

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. 

[gr8player]

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.

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.

[soxfan]

The gr88888888one comes through, again, hey hey.

[gr8player]

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.

[alrelax]

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. 

[Jimske]

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.

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.

[alrelax]

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.

[Jimske]

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.

I 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.

[soxfan]

Bwaaaaaaaaaaa, the alrelax is a real moustache Pete, hey hey!

[Rolex-Watch]

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?

[Rolex-Watch]

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..

I 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.

~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.

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]

[gr8player]

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.

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.

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.

[Rolex-Watch]

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.   

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.

You 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] <<   

[gr8player]

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.

[Rolex-Watch]

: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.

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/ is worth a ride and the https://www.marinabaysands.com/ shopping complex is architecturally very spectacular, 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]

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