I wish to hear your comments about this simple situation a friend of mine asked me.
Let's suppose you really need $500 just playing baccarat (no other extra money earnings allowed) having our last $5000 bankroll and 3 days to play (24/7).
The tables minimum limit is $25.
We know that the best mathematical expectancy of being ahead of $500 will be the choice of betting $525 on Banker side right on our first bet, but we rule out such possibility from the options.
Which one or more than one of the following factors would you attribute the most importance to reach the goal?
- Table selection (shoe general texture, hand made shuffling vs machine shuffling, speed of the game, etc)
- "Small" standard bet strategy trying to control the disbursement and hoping to get a multiple winning outcome soon or later.
- "Moderate" standard bet strategy trying to control the variance and to shorten the EV- game periods.
- "High" standard bet strategy oriented to reduce the EV- impact hoping for the best in short intervals.
- Money management (parlays and negative aggressive martingales included)
- Preordered subjective betting selection (no use of possible objective long term winning findings)
- Trend following strategy
- "Lucky" players following strategy
- Other
I'd like to know your opinions not forgetting that the scenario will be all about the absolute urgency to win $500 not affording to lose your last $5000 bankroll.
as.
You never stated the table max. But, with 5ks bankroll seeking to capture 500$ I would use the positive progression style with 100$ base bets, and should be easy to capture that 500$ profits, hey hey.
Quote from: soxfan on July 25, 2015, 02:18:09 AM
You never stated the table max. But, with 5ks bankroll seeking to capture 500$ I would use the positive progression style with 100$ base bets, and should be easy to capture that 500$ profits, hey hey.
You are right, the table max is $5000.
Thanks for your answer.
as.
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on July 25, 2015, 12:23:44 AM
I wish to hear your comments about this simple situation a friend of mine asked me.
Basically you are asking the question for yourself. Because you would have been able (by your own claims) been able to assist your
friend, rather than posing the question like it has come from a third person.
:zzz:
Table Selection will be most important,
Being that I have total control of my situation.
I would pick a table that never went over two in a row.
Quote from: ezmark on July 25, 2015, 04:52:33 AM
Table Selection will be most important,
Being that I have total control of my situation.
I would pick a table that never went over two in a row.
So when did prior results start having significance regarding those cards that are sitting inside the shoe and waiting to be drawn? What level of awareness / understanding do the cards have, in that, nothing thus far has gone over two, so they must stay this way?
In fact if you pick a table which nothing thus far has gone over two, I would say it is more than likely, the shoe will probably change.
:upsidedown:
Here is a tip for ya, the game is random, prior hands, patterns, trends have no significance whatsoever against what is basically a "coin-flip".
quit erasing my posts or else adulay you moron
I would wager the majority of responses would simply be the method each individual bets themselves. Such as Soxfan with his parlay.
I would most likely break down a $5k bankroll into 200 $25 units and continue to try and capture 20u ($500) the same way I do now. However I am going to take the liberty of assuming a different gambling environment where I have access to multiple casino's with multiple Baccarat tables open 24/7 for the next 72 hours.
And my choice would be table selection for the purposes of 'shoe texture'.
I would look for a rare event, and bet for it not to continue.
For instance, Player ahead of Banker by 20 decisions within the first 40 decisions of an eight deck shoe. (ties excluded) And I would bet FLD on Banker. My bet/gamble being that I am not about to witness one of the very rare occasions where Player wins over Banker by 20 decisions or more. I would stay in this shoe until Player was only ahead by 10 and either exit or significantly lower my bet if I could.
Or, look for a shoe where one side has not once hit the 2h in at least 9 attempts from the start of the shoe, and again wait for the first time it hits the 2h and start betting FLD on that side.
Basically, look for a massive imbalance and bet for it to head in the direction of equilibrium. Not betting all the way to a perfect balance, just trying to hitch a short ride in that direction, and pulling off when it approaches a more reasonable imbalance. Which I consider to be about half the distance it was when you got on it.
NO guarantees of course. NO predictions possible. Just a hope/gamble/bet you don't witness too many consecutive rare events. And a negative progression will be in order the closer you get to your time limit.
HBS
Quote from: WorldBaccaratKing on July 25, 2015, 01:27:30 PM
quit erasing my posts or else adulay you moron
I erase/delete NOTHING in an ongoing discussion.
I still don't like the ability of a thread starter being able to delete any message in a thread, but that's out of my hands.
AD (porn and obvious spam is fair game, of course)
Quote from: Rolex-Watch on July 25, 2015, 02:48:29 AM
Basically you are asking the question for yourself. Because you would have been able (by your own claims) been able to assist your friend, rather than posing the question like it has come from a third person.
Nope, the third part request is 100% genuine, he knows my strategy/ideas pretty well and for the most part he doesn't like 'em.
If you don't believe me, np. Pretend I'm the one to ask.
as.
Quote from: Rolex-Watch on July 25, 2015, 11:45:21 AM
So when did prior results start having significance regarding those cards that are sitting inside the shoe and waiting to be drawn? What level of awareness / understanding do the cards have, in that, nothing thus far has gone over two, so they must stay this way?
In fact if you pick a table which nothing thus far has gone over two, I would say it is more than likely, the shoe will probably change.
Here is a tip for ya, the game is random, prior hands, patterns, trends have no significance whatsoever against what is basically a "coin-flip".
Ok.
But if you had to scratch those $500 among the options which one or more than one would you use?
I guess you answer "other". ;-)
as.
Thanks ezmark and HBS.
Ezmark
So I think you prefer to follow a most chopping selected shoe than trying to get what it didn't happen in the past, right?
HBS
In your well detailed and much appreciated answer (as always) you stated to prefer getting a possible advantage on RTM effect betting small wagers.
Are there some situations when you decide to play toward a deviation not being a counterbalancement of previous events?
Finally, do you extend a RTM philosophy in a "cumulative" fashion, that is do you try to play toward the equlibrium over some very deviated situations happened in the previous shoe/s?
In this specific question, soxfan would prefer to place standard bets of 1/5 of the total amount aimed by a whatever positive progression style. This strategy should raise the probability to get ahead of $500 without having to risk too much in order to preserve the $5k bankroll.
Of course we all know very well that from a strict mathematical point of view there is a correct answer (or at least certain better options), but as the game is unbeatable anyone has the right to choose his/her own way of action.
Further opinions are very welcome, of course.
as.
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on July 25, 2015, 10:01:56 PM
HBS
In your well detailed and much appreciated answer (as always) you stated to prefer getting a possible advantage on RTM effect betting small wagers.
Are there some situations when you decide to play toward a deviation not being a counterbalancement of previous events?
Finally, do you extend a RTM philosophy in a "cumulative" fashion, that is do you try to play toward the equlibrium over some very deviated situations happened in the previous shoe/s?
Yeah, I have a problem keeping it short. :)
I was not aware I was betting for an RTM effect until a couple of months ago when I read through much of what Bayes had written pertaining to Roulette. My intention is to choose to lose to an unlikely occurrence. To fashion my nemesis from some of the rarest events possible.
I do not attempt to bet into a large deviation after its discovery. If I find myself already betting with a strong deviation I will continue until my first loss and stop betting with it. Unless, my bets were large enough that I can significantly reduce them and steal reap a profit if I find myself on the wrong side of a RTM effect. For example, if I won ten 5u bets with a strong deviation, I'm willing to lose ten 1u bets betting for its continuance.
Yes, I do extend an RTM philosophy in cumulative fashion from previous shoes. But, I do it with a little abstract subjectivity. Usually, their are two decks of shoes. Deck(A) and Deck(B). Both shuffled by an auto shuffler. If Deck (A) had Banker single 5 times and run 13 times, an imbalance of 8. I will wait until that same Deck (A) comes out of that auto shuffler and bet that it will not display that same imbalance. I wouldn't expect it produce the exact opposite with 5 runs and 13 singles, but I anticipate it being more balanced, closer to 10 runs vs 10 singles.
I know that random is random, and that in the long run it shouldn't make a difference what shoe I bet on. But I adhere to the idea ( as opposed to a belief ) that in the short run, the random decisions produced in a specific deck, shuffled by a specific auto shuffler are bound together.
If Deck (A) is severely Player dominant. I do not expect Deck (B) to come out and be Banker dominant in an attempt to Regress To the Mean. Deck (B) is a separate expression of random in itself, wholly unrelated to Deck (A). I expect Deck (A) to be re shuffled, and disperse its decisions more in line with its expected distribution of events. Not necessarily a Banker dominant shoe, but a shoe where Banker and Player are much closer to a 50/50 split.
HBS
As things change the more they remain the same or something similar ...
Last week there was a shoe that went more than two in a row only twice and then to only three.
I didn't play it, I watched and was thinking, surely things will change .
As -
Imo , Its the rare events we remember most often, the choppy shoe or the shoe full of runs.
So we often hear that a choppy shoe remains choppy, or a running shoe remains running, Or at least played that way.
Yes, I would follow and favor a choppy shoe remaining choppy.
I wanted to add that my bs style would be trending, that's cuz at some point I'd be on a p or b streak or a run of chop to help my capture that 5 units of 100$, hey hey.
HBS, you explained very well your game philosophy.
It seems that your strategy is similar to many gr8player ideas.
I noticed that you focus your play mainly on the B/P gaps either in form of deviations or taking advantage of a possible RTM effect. Have you ever tried to consider other events such as singles, doubles, triples, 4+ and so on?
I've found that variance is better restrained on some losing patterns, the downside is to wait several hands/shoes to get the possible favourable betting situations.
ezmark
I knew it ;-)
Actually itlr we'll have a slight higher amount of choppy shoes than streaky shoes, expecially on 8-deck shoes.
Thus imo the problem is when we want to get a streaky shoe keep streaking or to transform a streaky shoe into a mostly choppy shoe.
Of course there are many choppy shoes going streaky but the number of choppy shoes being mostly choppy till the end is slightly higher.
If we consider any side as a distinct entity the effect is fairly amplified on one side and slightly inverted on the other one.
as.
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on July 26, 2015, 10:01:31 PM
HBS, you explained very well your game philosophy.
It seems that your strategy is similar to many gr8player ideas.
I noticed that you focus your play mainly on the B/P gaps either in form of deviations or taking advantage of a possible RTM effect. Have you ever tried to consider other events such as singles, doubles, triples, 4+ and so on?
I've found that variance is better restrained on some losing patterns, the downside is to wait several hands/shoes to get the possible favourable betting situations.
ezmark
I knew it ;-)
Actually itlr we'll have a slight higher amount of choppy shoes than streaky shoes, expecially on 8-deck shoes.
Thus imo the problem is when we want to get a streaky shoe keep streaking or to transform a streaky shoe into a mostly choppy shoe.
Of course there are many choppy shoes going streaky but the number of choppy shoes being mostly choppy till the end is slightly higher.
If we consider any side as a distinct entity the effect is fairly amplified on one side and slightly inverted on the other one.
as.
Singles, doubles, triples, etc doesn't always work like anything else. you can't just go to a casino and blindly play that. If you do, well i know you are a loser and will continue to do so.
Singles, doubles, triples, etc doesn't always work like anything else. you can't just go to a casino and blindly play that. If you do, well i know you are a loser and will continue to do so.
Yep, they don't always work like anything else, they most likely work differently to anything else. Expecially on some situations.
as.
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on July 26, 2015, 10:01:31 PM
HBS, you explained very well your game philosophy.
I noticed that you focus your play mainly on the B/P gaps either in form of deviations or taking advantage of a possible RTM effect. Have you ever tried to consider other events such as singles, doubles, triples, 4+ and so on?
I've found that variance is better restrained on some losing patterns, the downside is to wait several hands/shoes to get the possible favourable betting situations.
Quite a bit of my play is the 2h and it isn't always just for an FLD selection, a lot of it is related to singles vs runs of any length. As for doubles and triples, I will on occasion bet that a double will finally make it to the 3h if it has doubled five times or more and not run to or past the 3h more than once. This I play with caution, because in my experience you can get a large imbalance of multiple doubles vs runs of 3 or greater in one shoe. It happened to me a couple of weeks ago where I lost a handful of bets at the end of the shoe betting some of those twos became threes.
As for runs of 4 or greater, they can be infrequent. I mainly look for distributions of long runs. And bet I don't see a perfect (symmetrical?) distribution. Such as 8 doubles, 4 triples, and 2 quads on any one side. Somewhere in there I'll make a bet that one of those runs continues for one more decision. If Player opened up hitting the 3h three times, and then ran to the 4h twice as it proceeded to double 8 times throughout the shoe, and now toward the end I'm looking at Player once again running to the 3h. I'll bet right there that it goes to at least 4.
I do not pay attention to the distribution of runs of three and greater from shoe to shoe on any one side or together collectively. I guess I could, it should be no different than me paying attention to the distribution of singles vs how often the 2h gets lit up. If I did, I would probably separate them by the particular deck played and not lump both Deck (A) and (B) together.
I understand the concept of waiting for a particular losing sequence before betting. If it reduces the volatility of variance it would be very advantageous. I don't have the luxury of time to wait for such events. Sometimes it can take two hours to get through one shoe. The other night I was there for about 45 minutes and barely got through 20 decisions.
Have you ever considered the opposite? Waiting for a WWWW pattern and betting for the L?
HBS
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on July 26, 2015, 10:01:31 PM
It seems that your strategy is similar to many gr8player ideas.
as.
Many players, and most especially trenders, have numerous commonalities within their preferred play(s).
Rather often when I play, the majority of the table is betting similarly. It's just the way it is; the nature of the game.....if the 2-hole is being filled consistently, I'm not the only person at the table that both recognizes it and knows how to profit from it.
Rather, the differences come most often in regards to money-management and entry/exit strategies.
While I am a confirmed trender, I am rather well-versed in the art of "walking a winner". And that doesn't necessarily just apply to ending the session.....it just as well applies to ceasing betting as a particular trend appears exhausted. Nothing last forever. Not streaks, not trends, not biases. Nothing. So we learn to hit it and quit it.....that is, if PROFIT is our main objective.
We learn, as well, about plateaus. I mean, if you're up 10 units and you lose back 2 or 3 of them, might that be a good time to quit the shoe? Otherwise, we risk the sad fact that our +10 was all done for naught. No good, and not any way to live at the tables. In that same vein, in a tougher shoe, any +5 units should at once be walked if the next 1 or 2 bets were lost.
In other words, it's imperative to learn how to walk a winner.
As to money-management, I prefer a relatively-conservative approach. How did I come to that reality? Well, that's an easy answer.....by getting my butt kicked in by betting more and more dollars into a losing cause......do that a couple of times and you learn conservatism really, really quickly.
So I've lowered my unit sizes and, in that same vein, lowered my win goals. It's OK. It works fine with me now, given the fact that my casino time isn't nearly as limited as it was in years past. So, in the end, I'm going to wind up winning more money by betting LESS dollars. That is now a luxury that I can truly enjoy.
Stay well, all.
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on July 25, 2015, 12:23:44 AM
Let's suppose you really need $500 just playing baccarat (no other extra money earnings allowed) having our last $5000 bankroll and 3 days to play (24/7).
The tables minimum limit is $25.
Consider this;
5k bankroll, bet $100 units, 50 units at your disposal, need to win 5 chips and your done (vig withstanding), ratio 1 ~ 50
Bet $25 unit, 200 units at your disposal, need to win 20 units, ratio 1 ~ 200, can stretch a negative progression much further, yet requires more table action for a none predictive game.
Go find a $10 table, 500 units at your disposal, need to win 50 units, a decent enough spread for any negative progression, need to be at the table much longer, but do you? The original post stated the need to win $500 using a $5k BR, there was no mention of a time limit, so no pressure to achieve this within a single session. So if somebody is looking to turn $5k into $5.5k, then if it takes 2 or 3 sessions, so be it. Betting with a 1 ~ 500 spread is going to be more powerful than betting with a 1 ~ 200 or worst a 1 ~ 50 spread.
Which route to take, will I suppose be dependant somewhat on the faith you have in your bet selection and propensity to using negative progressions. Enough has been posted over the years regarding the bigger the spread you deploy the less likely of busting out.
I will add for the sake of conversation... my choice of MM will be Flat Bet $90 for a Low Bankroll Variance, it will take 6 wins less commission over approx. 3 shoes or less played,
With luck and hope of choosing a shoe with a Bias curved toward multiple singles or (seconds) doubles plus.
I would bet only once each attempt win or lose, for a single or a (seconds) double only.
Without other indicators, I will look for Past Shoe Texture to indicate a Bias and with luck it will continue throughout the shoe.
My target win min. will be $150 profit per shoe.
I do agree with Rolex's way of thinking in the long run the Default Bias designed in the Texture of the game is unbeatable.
In the long run if you play thousands of hands flat betting or progressions the default bias in the texture of baccarat cannot be beaten.
( Default Bias is the one we all know for singles through 10 plus in a row as 50% 25 % 12.5% 6.25% etc.. )
If we take tens or hundreds of games, add up the singles, two's, three's etc..., and divide each by the total we will find that the percentages will be very close within a percent or two of the default bias texture for each singles, twos, threes, etc...
However, judgement or a secret computer program that can pick out a winning shoe, may have an influence in the results , because each shoe is different,
If your progression is slow enough and long enough you May be able to catch the shoe who's bias favors your style of play then you may recoup your losses, or not, such is Gr8's style of trending. Or the guy who used a slow progression step per shoe. If you're not in a hurry and can bet only a couple times per game in the right places you may win with flat bets in the short term, ever how long that is.
In the short term you can win, a little, in the very long term the Default Bias will beat you, if you base your play as most do picking P or B as your bet.
Ezmark, you are a smart man. Kudos.
Yes, we're all familiar with the common stats of the game. As a matter of fact, the serious trender utilizes those stats to the best of their abilities when determined to build both a bet selection- and a money management-strategy that'll withstand the test of time.
A bit more about trending:
To quote you just above: "However, judgement.......that can pick out a winning shoe, may have an influence in the results, because each shoe is different."
This assessment is correct, and is the very backbone of trending. To "pick out a winning shoe" (or even a portion thereof), IMHO, most certainly WILL "influence the results".
In fact, that is our job. To "influence the results".
This is what patient and disciplined play is all about. Awaiting those "where's Waldo" trends of THIS PARTICULAR SHOE (or portion thereof) when there is a trend holding rather well. I look at it as "finding Waldo".
There'll be but a couple of trends that'll "hold". There won't be dozens, just a couple. My job is to find them. And I find them because I seek them out. I don't play (read: "no-bet") when they're not there, that's where the patience comes in. And I bet only for those certain trends that I am best familiar with and can readily recognize early on, that's where the discipline comes in.
So the patience and the discipline bring about what?:
They provide "virtual losses".
Think about that for a minute, if you will. All the time that my preferred trends are "sleeping", aren't those "virtual losses"? Sure they are. They are losses that I would suffer IF I WERE to bet every hand, chasing for my trends. I prefer not. In my mind, in my methodology, the LONGER I NEED WAIT, THE BETTER. Why? The more virtual losses that add up, the better.
Look, EVERYTHING happens in this game. EVERYTHING. The Player's side will stop at 2 sometime or another. Or it will hit the 3-hole sometime or another. (Sidenote: I'm not endorsing this one trend, rather simply using it as an example.) So the question now becomes: How do I capitalize on it?:
Well, it may not be this portion of the shoe....heck, it may not be this particular shoe. But, mark my words, a "holding" trend WILL form somewhere while you're there where that Player's side is EITHER stopping consistently at 2 or hitting consistently the 3-hole. And that is where you make your money.
Now, everything that is NOT that trend, as it pertains to the Player's side, is a "virtual loss". But, even that said, you still have encountered some real losses because this trend, while hoping it might have been developing, we were wrong and we've lost some units in that unfortunate event. The trend didn't hold as planned, we're down a few units on it.:
No problem. That's what money-management is for. We increase our bet, but ONLY ON THAT ONE LAGGING TREND. And we maintain that increase ONLY until recoup of the prior loss on that one particular trend. Rinse and repeat, until into PROFIT on that one particular trend.
Pardon my indulgence as I go as bit further on topic:
Some of you might well remember a method of play sometime back called the Infallible Baccarat System.
(Sidenote: I might be off on the exact title....might've been the Infallible Roulette System....I'm not sure, but it makes little difference, as it pertains to betting for certain EC (read: even chance) events.)
Anyhow, the basic premise was all about the utilization of three separate and unique banks in order to capitalize on all streaks ending at 1, 2, and 3. As I try to remember it, they were attempting to capitalize, at some final point or another, on all of those streaks ending; so that, in the end, they'd have made money on the singles, the doubles, and the triples.
Not too shabby. After all, most of the results fall within those first three holes on our horizontal Baccarat scorecards. And this method was designed to come away with a final profit on each of them.
I like the premise. That said, I'm not too familiar with their actual usage of the separate banks, but, regardless, their premise is, IMHO, a sound one. The utilization of separate and unique banks solely to capture, in the end, a profit for each....one for streaks of one (singles), one for streaks of two (doubles), and one for streaks of three (triples).
All right, let's get down to it: I don't play it that way. But I do utilize, in some fashion, that same premise as I, too, in the end, attempt to fashion a profit from each of my preferred trends. I use separate "banks" (actually, just separate minor...both positive and negative...progressions) for each of my preferred trends. All in the hopes, just as they did, at "closing" each of those banks at some point or another at each of my sessions.
I do this for a reason:
Conservatism.
Conservation of bet selection, conservation of bankroll, and last but certainly not least, conservation of psyche.
In other words, a workable, conservative plan of play. I seek a profit for each of my preferred trends, and will do what I need to in order to get there.
One last point that I must make:
I bet small. I feel as if I must make that clear, I've lowered my initial bet sizes. Why? Less stress....both on myself on my bankroll. And limiting stress is, IMHO, paramount for the serious professional player.
Money? The money, regardless of unit size, will always add up nicely for the consistent winner.
Quote from: Rolex-Watch on July 29, 2015, 06:33:45 AM
The original post stated the need to win $500 using a $5k BR, there was no mention of a time limit,
Hi RW.
Yes I limited the endeavour in 3 playing days on 24/7 working tables.
Anyway there's nothing wrong in your comment.
as.
HBS, nope I don't like to bet toward a L after a WWWW pattern.
In many instances I prefer to wait the appearance of several WWWL sequences before betting then wagering for another W.
If the opposite scenario had appeared (many WWWW patterns) I shift to assess the ratio between 4WIAR and 4+WIAR. And so on.
As gr8players sayed, and forgetting a possible edge on some situations (and it does exist though very diluted), we must let some "losing" patterns go without betting. At the risk to miss some more winning opportunities. Of course, itlr the "missed"opportunites won't be counterbalanced by the situations where we'll get more winnings than losses, and this is assumption is 100% accurate without the benefit of some sort of edge.
Taking the concept to the extreme, I mean that after our very first bet we are either in optimal shape or in the sure descending route to the point of no return. Slightly, very diluted trip, still having a sure outcome.
as.