+ Register

[Nickmsi]

Hi James and Glen,

I understand and agree there are millions and millions of possibilities.  You are correct that it is impossible to conceive of every possibility there is.

But that does not matter. 

That does not change the Law of Math.

1+1 will always equal 2.

1+2=2 regardless of the millions of possibilities.

Do you agree that 1+1 will always = 2 no matter what happens in a deck or on the roulette wheel?

If you will kindly advise that you understand this fact, then my next post in my thread will make more sense.

Cheers

Nick

[alrelax]

Hi James and Glen,

I understand and agree there are millions and millions of possibilities.  You are correct that it is impossible to conceive of every possibility there is.

(That is why I do not believe in or subscribe to the theory of what should or needs to come out to catch up, equal out or meet any expectation of theory)

But that does not matter. 

(It matters as my mind set will focus on what is happening more so than what has happened or what needs to or what should happen, I rather wager with what could happen, most times).

That does not change the Law of Math.

(Yes correct, but the law of math is different than the law of theory application and individual shoe adherence to game theory)

1+1 will always equal 2. (Yes)

1+2=2 regardless of the millions of possibilities. (No, 1 +2 =3) IMO

Do you agree that 1+1 will always = 2 no matter what happens in a deck or on the roulette wheel? (Yes)

If you will kindly advise that you understand this fact, then my next post in my thread will make more sense.

Cheers

Nick

[Babu]

Baccarat = random = disorder

To win strategy:
1. play anti-orderly

[Johno-Egalite]

In order to 'beat' randomness and 'define it' to mathematical and statistical outcome, you would have to be able to compress all the strings of outcomes, that are possible in baccarat.  And, that feat cannot be done and converted to a schedule of definitive presentments that will happen with certainty or even near certainty.

The reason no one can develop a schedule of upcoming winning hands in baccarat is, that the upcoming sequence(s) will not repeat themselves in a 'cyclical order' with definition and preset values that have to happen. 

Haven't read the complete thread, just wanting to chime in.

It is indeed possible to "compress all strings of outcomes" that are possible in Baccarat, no matter what size chunks you decide to break any given shoe into, it does not matter that these "chunks" do not follow any particular cyclical order.

The true reason why is it impossible to beat baccarat is because everything resolves to a 50-50 mathematical state, meaning there is no possible edge. Leaving system players exposed to the house edge requiring a negative or positive progression for long term success which then exposes the player to variance.

[BEAT-THE-WHEEL]

Gentlement,
My 1cent,

In next shoe, no matter how many quadzillion, sisilion, or gigglelion of permutation, one thing is sure,

B >  P,  or
P < B....
P=B.....highly impossible.

Now, if only , we have a method that always produce near 50% win/lose ratio.....( if ...only...).

If you could think out a strategy that hit, that ALWAYS HIT WITHIN NEGATIVE MATH EXPECTATION....in 100 to 300 hands/spins,
A simple 1....2....4  progression, will always win...


@NICKMSI,
If the vdw, even if the not produce edge, BUT negative1 to 3 % HE, then, it a breeze!

[Johno-Egalite]

A simple 1....2....4  progression, will always win...

This will NEVER win, NEVER EVER.

Not a single chance in hell.

For every 3 losses in a row, you have to win 7 times more than lose just to recoup.

[alrelax]

No bets are ever guaranteed to win, whether flat betting or positive progressions they can go for 8 10 12 15 times in a row without winning.

All positive progressions do whether a 1-2- 4 or a 1-3-2-6 is allow you to stack up more win quicker, if you're winning rather than flat betting.

There are also strategic reasons for doing a positive progressions.  My favorite is the  1-3-2-6, but I'm still risking the first two bets, however the last two I have no risk if I did win with my risk capital, that I put forward to attempt to win the 4th one for 12 units return. But again no guarantee whatsoever.

What many don't realize is, I'm risking two units to win 12 units. The first wager one unit is at risk yes, of course.   If I won that first unit first wager, than my second wager is 3 units, if I lost,  I lose two units if I won I have my two units replaced with  two units profit and my third wager of two units is covered.   If I lose the third wager I still have two units profit and my two units that I risk is returned.  If I win that third wager of two units, I move to my fourth wager which is 6 units and I'm putting up the two units I had  reserved and the four units that I realized off the third wager. If I lose that fourth wager of 6 units,  I still have my first two units that were at risk are returned.   I have no profit but I have no loss for those for Wagers.  If the last wager of six was won, then I have 12 units profit, then I reset.

And again another important point is, that if I lose that third wager I still have two chances, in and above my risk money for those two additional chances to pull the same thing off to win 12 units without touching my buy-in.

Which to me makes a lot more sense than 1 2 4 8 16 because it's so hard to win consecutively without anything being pulled down or covered. 

[BEAT-THE-WHEEL]

Hi Lugi,
With respect,

Its 1u for 100spins, 2u for next 100spins and 4u for next 100spins.
Thanks, sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Johno-Egalite]

Hi Lugi,
With respect,

Its 1u for 100spins, 2u for next 100spins and 4u for next 100spins.
Thanks, sorry for the misunderstanding.

I thought you were referring to a negative progression.

[alrelax]

Haven't read the complete thread, just wanting to chime in.

It is indeed possible to "compress all strings of outcomes" that are possible in Baccarat, no matter what size chunks you decide to break any given shoe into, it does not matter that these "chunks" do not follow any particular cyclical order.

The true reason why is it impossible to beat baccarat is because everything resolves to a 50-50 mathematical state, meaning there is no possible edge. Leaving system players exposed to the house edge requiring a negative or positive progression for long term success which then exposes the player to variance.

In response to "chunks".  As I see them, or referred tot hem in the past, was something along the lines of "sections & turning points".  But I use that to identify what has happened and what has not happened with the shoe. Not necessarily as to what is going to happen.

People look at the score board the 5 roads within most of them.  The big road is what it is, what the current score as to what happens as it happens.  The 3 smaller ones on most board set ups are the more complicated ones and the ones that mislead most all players with the tails and the other various interpretations as to what they do or do not stand for.  As far as the 'Bead Plate' I have personally won more off that at times (key word being AT TIMES), rather than a steady diet.  The rows going horizontal when they follow themselves have been very good to me.  It does not matter that they might not follow or ever come about again on a future shoe in the same scenario.  Any member here that specializes in beating down other members will certainly have a field day with what I just cited.  But I have seen countless times a Bead Plate row continually reflecting a steady Player, or a steady Banker or a steady alternating pattern, etc.  To me, these are the  "Chunks" or part of the "sections & turning points" depending on how many hands are out.  I view the shoe in 3 to 5 sections as a norm.  Again, to me, it is relevance and not perceptions. 

Compress al you want, the facts and the figures still will not match the majority of the shoes you sit down to play.  There is only 1 of 2 possible choices each hand can be.  As far as what chance a player has, say if he wagers 2 hands, his chance of getting 2 in a row would have to be 1 in 4.  If he went to the table and was only going to bet one hand and then stop, it would be a 1 in 2 or a 50-50 chance to win.  But two hands would expand to a 1 in 4 chance.  Because the more you play the greater the odds turn against you.

Your chart has 16 possibilities for 4 chances shown, that is correct.  Which proves my point, IMO.

[Johno-Egalite]

In order to 'beat' randomness and 'define it' to mathematical and statistical outcome, you would have to be able to compress all the strings of outcomes, that are possible in baccarat.

I felt like resurrecting this thread, to make a few points, firstly, as I've stated, it is quite possible to define and show all the possible strings that can exist in a Baccarat shoe, you might need a decent computer, but it is far from being impossible.  As I've stated elsewhere, it is also possible to manipulate such data into simple manageable chunks so you can apply various strategies no matter what the shoe throws at you, these can be either static or dynamic options.

However the main reason for resurrecting the thread, is the title; "Why You Can Never Have a Successful Math System to Beat Bac".   

In order to be able to answer that question, you would have to define what would constitute a successful math system?  What would be the measure of success for a successful math system for Baccarat?

One that could predict the next winning hand?  Hmmmm, believe it or not, actually that is probably quite possible, seriously, but relies on such an event, it is unlikely to ever happen.

Or, a system that wins more hands than it loses against a given reasonable sample of hands, or all possibilities? That is mathematically impossible, so isn't going to happen, not due to the system, simply because mathematically, such a system can't exist, however there is caveat.  For the same reason why it can't exist, also makes it impossible that the system will lose more hands than it can possible win.



     

[james]

No mechanical system can beat Baccarat. But some believe that a flexible system, "Follow the Shoe (FTS)" can beat Baccarat. As its name implies, you bet according to what the shoe is doing. It is claimed that some have become millionaires playing Baccarat, using this approach.

[alrelax]

I felt like resurrecting this thread, to make a few points, firstly, as I've stated, it is quite possible to define and show all the possible strings that can exist in a Baccarat shoe, you might need a decent computer, but it is far from being impossible.  As I've stated elsewhere, it is also possible to manipulate such data into simple manageable chunks so you can apply various strategies no matter what the shoe throws at you, these can be either static or dynamic options.

However the main reason for resurrecting the thread, is the title; "Why You Can Never Have a Successful Math System to Beat Bac".   

In order to be able to answer that question, you would have to define what would constitute a successful math system?  What would be the measure of success for a successful math system for Baccarat?  (There are no successful math systems that can be reduced to any type of playable system on a scheduled plan, that would prevail all the time or even the majority of the time, no way, never ever).

One that could predict the next winning hand?  Hmmmm, believe it or not, actually that is probably quite possible, seriously, but relies on such an event, it is unlikely to ever happen. (No it is not likely or possible.  Easy to say, but you do not have it, nor do you have the outline, the system or the gross product to reduce to anything to play)

Or, a system that wins more hands than it loses against a given reasonable sample of hands, or all possibilities? That is mathematically impossible, so isn't going to happen, not due to the system, simply because mathematically, such a system can't exist, however there is caveat.  For the same reason why it can't exist, also makes it impossible that the system will lose more hands than it can possible win.

(As far as that last couple of sentences, you wrote confusingly, maybe for a purpose?  Maybe not?  But, when you start talking small sections with turning points, yes---reality is much more in the picture and not so broad.  However, the emotional and the frame of mind will divert most all players from even beginning to recognize the possibilities and their best chance to prevail in most all cases.  However, a select few might understand and side with me, that there are chances to realize redundant wins much greater than 50% but the same problem and complexity will usually be present---that is, the ability to define, limited oneself and move forward to employ using just those. But as you mentioned, 'caveats', and if a player follows the correct caveats it can be very profitable if he understands the caveat and the non-caveats as well.)

   

[alrelax]

Read the O.P. once again.  Look up things, take the time to understand.  Go down the roads things can lead you to.  Might prove interesting?  Stop the reading of one or two sentences and challenging.  Stop the attacking of the posters, the messengers of reality.

....."In short, they will never find that 'a' means anything to 'b' equaling 'x'.  Period.  They will find that 'a' and 'b' affect the value of each other, but there are billions of combinations possible and within a round of 80 hands or so, the impossibility will remain. 

That is why I take the stance I do regarding the conversion of math and stats to the value of the cards and attempting to realize a repetitive schedule to play by.  The cards can never present themselves the same way, based on anything to coincide with a planned schedule......"

[Bally6354]

No mechanical system can beat Baccarat. But some believe that a flexible system, "Follow the Shoe (FTS)" can beat Baccarat. As its name implies, you bet according to what the shoe is doing. It is claimed that some have become millionaires playing Baccarat, using this approach.

Maybe that's true and maybe it's not. But if Norm was betting 5k units as was mentioned, then it only takes winning 200 units to reach the first million. You could argue that someone somewhere is going to get lucky and win a few hundred units. He was reportedly using a 1,2 loop progression which makes it even more achievable with such high units.