+ Register

[ezmark]

Several months ago there was someone betting only the player side every shoe... and would increase his bed if he had a negative result at the end of the shoe.. he did post his results which seem to be okay... does anyone remember what happened...

[alrelax]

I have been off the board for several months, a while anyways.  I don't know about that post. 

However, on a side note and might be interesting to you or some others:

There is a midi/Macau style table at a property close to me.  Quite a bit of pretty good action.  It has been for some time, 'player heavy', usually most shoes--the clear majority, dominated in excess of 10 plus player hands in the lead consistently.  Even gets player positive win decisions in excess of 13-15 hands ahead at least 3/4 shoes out of those 10 shoes, etc.  At times within the shoe--almost every shoe, but at times even though ahead by numerous winning decisions it finishes almost equal or just a few ahead of Banker.  I would have to say this has been going on for the past 4 or 5  months.  They just took out a Mini table they had and replaced it wit another Midi/Macau style table.  It has been Banker or neutral consistent for the past several weeks.

Back to the other table.  At times, everything points to Banker and even a strong trend/pattern say, 1 Player, 2 Bankers, 1 Player, 2 Bankers, 1 Player, then 1 Banker then like 5 to 8 Players in a row.  But this is consistently at haphazard spots of the shoe of course.  Watching 10 shoes would prove 7 to 9 shoes of player dominated results.  Of course here in the Midwest more so than east and west coasts, the players love to wager only the cut and what the shoe is not supposed to do, wagering against the chop and every streak and while streaking they tend to wager every hand to the non-streaking side, etc.  So not many capitalize on what the is doing or producing.  They simply as a blanket rule for years, refuse to play along with the shoe.  Even when it produces 14 or 15 Bankers and then switches to players and it is on the 3rd or 4th player down, they will consistently every hand wager heavy Banker, then it makes 12-13-14 players to match the Banker run, everyone but one or two people lost huge money. 

But, like all things, in the long run (and the long run has different time values to each of us) it will all straighten out and equal once again. 

Those wagering only Player, only Banker, only for the chop, only for the repeats will never ever profit unless they are only playing an extremely short period of time, like a few hands and very very limited days a month or a year.  All IMO and experience from decades of play. 

Comes back to mind:  There was this one individual back in my early Atlantic City days, all big 14 people tables, all high limit, mini bac on the main floor section, etc.  Sat down, bought in with $20,000.00.  All purple chips and a stack or two of green.  Wagered only on 1 or 2 key triggers he had and ones that I agree with (I WILL NOT CITE THOSE HERE FOR THE BACKLASH AND BELITTLING THAT WOULD BE POSTED) but he would occasionally throw up a tie for a green or two and a table min wager every so often just so nothing was said by the floor people for him not wagering very often.  Then when one of his key triggers came up, he would throw in table max ($10K at that time or nearly max) and usually hit it almost every time he played with us.  Then he was out, left, didn't come back until next week or two.  He was very, no--extremely disciplined and without keeping stats on what he did, would have to say, he hit those something like 7 or 8  times out of ten.  I know he did well for years doing that.  And, I do know if he played all night, every night or 3 or 4 nights a week, it would not be pretty either! 

[Sputnik]

 I read something similiar in the past at the VIP Lounge forum, many years ago.
There was a member with the name Talesman who once wrote about a guy who wait for a trigger and wagering two to three attempts with 100 Euro chips and won most of times.
Don't remember if there was a small progression involved.

This make me think about bet selections like Birthday Paradox where you have around 98.5% probability winning your bet and 1.5% losing it.
But that is not 1, 2 or three bets, that is 5 bets.
I can't get closer then that with my knowledge, so maybe there is a clustering pattern with high probability that beats that and make your bet a pretty sure thing.

Cheers

[alrelax]

Problem is, we like things that "float our boat".  Whether, food-women-arcade games-hunting-racing-, etc., etc., etc., and so on.  Gambling is no different.  You have a good looking steak and side dishes in front of you, say at Peter Luger's Restaurant in NYC, you going to take one small bite and leave???  You have a beautiful woman on the bed under you, naked raising her legs, you leaving???  You have a brand new dirt bike and travelled to the off road section of the forest land and you get all geared up, you going to ride for 18 seconds and call it a day?  Okay, enough said. 

[Sputnik]

 I Think i getting your Point, but i have a different opinion, i don't belive you can get in and out doing what you do and make it a sure thing ...
All this storys would mean they beat the game and i don't belive in that, this players had to have a back up plan or strategy.

1. Hit and run with large bets, get in and wait for your trigger and win and quit for the day and get back next week and do the same thing again.

a) you get a feeling or impression winning more then you lose
b) it takes for ever for variance to Catch up
c) when you add up all does squenses into 300 trails you get the same as any other 300 random trails

So there has to be a back up plan, like if i lose my big wagering i play next round to win back half my bankroll and start over or any other kind of method.
Example using progression with different levels to grind back all the lost Money and then start over.

I don't buy that there is a existing 99% probability bet which we have not yet discover.

[alrelax]

Absolutely no sure thing.  Nothing 100%, zero/zilch/nadda/zip, etc. And if there was the table or machine would not be in a legalized casino---period, end of story.

There are chances and IMO the less you play the better the odds increase in your favor.  Entirely another story and not very pretty if you can hold on to it with increased time at play.

Progressions and MM is player advantage. 

[alrelax]

I don't buy that there is a existing 99% probability bet which we have not yet discover.

There has not!  But, the longer you play, the longer you wager, the greater the chances are of losing the winning, if you won. 

The list is endless.  Not just gambling.  Less chance of getting a traffic ticket if you are not driving.  Less chance of getting a sexually transmitted disease if you are not having sex.  Less chance of getting food poisoning if you cut down or out eating sushi and all other raw foods.  Less chance of getting in arguments if you don't engage in them in the first place or simply stand there and nod you head and walk away.  Like I said, endless list.  Most don't want to apply it to gambling because they are too head strong and too egotistic and proud that they know how to beat the casino, etc. 

[21 Aces]

That is like asking why not just bet Bank.  Because you will get rolled.  The game commands more respect than that.

I could see choosing only one side on a shoe dominated by that side and only placing bets on that side when you think it's going to hit.  However, anyone paying attention can see when the power shifts in a shoe.  Doesn't make the next plays so easy.



THE MORE YOU PLAY, THE BETTER YOU SHOULD GET.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIlDiz2MA8o

[AsymBacGuy]

It's a proven fact that whenever a player is in doubt he prefers to bet Banker and he's right as he will be 0.18% less disadvantaged.

Let's consider the problem from a mathematical aspect so we can't be wrong.

ANY HAND NOT PRODUCING AN ASYMMETRICAL HAND IS A PERFECT 50/50 PROPOSITION.
(Asym baccarat law #1)

Therefore betting Banker in those situations will be a HUGE MISTAKE and betting Player will be a SENSIBLE OPTION.
Actually wagering B we are payed 0.95:1 for a 50/50 situation.


ANY HAND PRODUCING AN ASYMMETRICAL HAND IS HUGELY SHIFTED TOWARD BANKER SIDE.
(Asym baccarat law #2)

Therefore betting Player in those situations will be a TREMENDOUS MISTAKE as well as wagering Banker is a WONDERFUL OPTION.
Actually wagering P our winning probability will be just 42.07%.

So from a mathematical point of view, our baccarat betting will be the mix of huge mistakes and sensible options along with tremendous mistakes and wonderful options.

Getting a winning natural point anytime we'll wager Banker is a st.upid bet, even if we think to be genius as well as winning our P bet because our 4 P point got a deuce or a three to overcome the Banker 5 standing point.

Extrapolating, any player wagering Player side is a sort of genius on two different levels:

-  his hand isn't drawing (perfect!, he will be favorite to win itlr);

- his hand is drawing but also Banker side must draw no matter what (ok, I'm glad to play a perfect no house edge situation).

On the other side, any player wagering Banker is a sort of genius on two different levels:

- Player hand is drawing (good!, I surpassed the first obstacle);

- his Banker hand has a 3,4,5 or 6 point (excellent situation!).

Mathematically, the rest is only a confusing and long term losing world, even if we were able to win a P hand on an asym hand or to win a B hand getting a 7, 8 or 9.

It's definitely true that itlr those features will balance toward the average mathematical expectancy, so our only possible option to get the best of it is trying to assess the most likely distribution of such features coming per any single shoe.

The only indisputable way to prove that a given system can win (or reducing the house edge) itlr is to demonstrate that Player bets are getting a well better than 1/11 probability to be 50/50 placed or, better, that Banker bets will get a better than 1/11 probability to cross aysmmmetrical huge shifted B hands.
No way to think to control the outcomes without taking into account the mathematical features of the game.

Truth to be told, we know that everything will be possible anywhere and anytime, yet we know that prolonging too much a winning session could only lead to disaster. More often than not.
Imo, we should act just in the opposite way and it takes time to do that.   

as.   

 


 


















 


















     

[alrelax]

My little, almost 4 year old--learned a new couple of words the other day, 'gobblie-goo'.

Then after I read your response, I asked him, Player only or Banker?  And he went, "Player maybe, but Banker maybe also daddy"....................LOL, and the same thing in less than 13 paragraphs!

[AsymBacGuy]

My little, almost 4 year old--learned a new couple of words the other day, 'gobblie-goo'.

Then after I read your response, I asked him, Player only or Banker?  And he went, "Player maybe, but Banker maybe also daddy"....................LOL, and the same thing in less than 13 paragraphs!

A natural!

as.

[21 Aces]

My little, almost 4 year old--learned a new couple of words the other day, 'gobblie-goo'.

Then after I read your response, I asked him, Player only or Banker?  And he went, "Player maybe, but Banker maybe also daddy"....................LOL, and the same thing in less than 13 paragraphs!

Why do you think they don't let kids play?

[Tomla]

I used to play only player shoe by shoe until ahead 3-4 years ago

first shoe $25 a hand if you lose the shoe next shoe $50 , if lose next shoe $75,,,,,,whenever I got ahead in any part of the shoe- back down to $25....

Never took me more than 4 shoes to get ahead....

for reasons beyond me I did 6-7 sessions like that and always won  ---then for whatever reason I changed my strategy

[Sputnik]

Tomla that is intressting, do you know what kind of probability your bet had?

Cheers

[Tomla]

Do not know the probability at all ........but think about it even if at $100 chips on shoe 4 , an early run of player would wipe out a lot of early mistakes. Not sure on the averages , but what is the average shoe off,  5-10 units one way or another? A big disparity is like 20 units off. Just always seemed to work within 3 shoes but mostly worked within 1-2 shoes. (limited  use of it here)

think of it as a big gr8 progression with sets of 70 instead of 7