+ Register

[AsymBacGuy]

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.   























 

[soxfan]

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.

[AsymBacGuy]

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. 

[Rolex-Watch]

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.

[ezmark]

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. 

[Rolex-Watch]

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.



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".

[WorldBaccaratKing]

quit erasing my posts or else adulay you moron

[HunchBacShrimp]

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

[ADulay]

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)

[AsymBacGuy]

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.

 

[AsymBacGuy]

  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.

 

[AsymBacGuy]

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. 

   




   

 
       

[HunchBacShrimp]

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

[ezmark]

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 .

[ezmark]

 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.