What strategy if we must win?

[soxfan]

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.

[AsymBacGuy]

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.
 

 
     



     

   

   

[WorldBaccaratKing]

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.


     



     

   

[AsymBacGuy]

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.

[HunchBacShrimp]

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

[gr8player]

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.

 
     



     

   

[Rolex-Watch]

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. 

[ezmark]

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. 

[ezmark]

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.

[gr8player]

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.

[gr8player]

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.

[AsymBacGuy]

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.



 

[AsymBacGuy]

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.