Ozon any new info on this progression?

Hello Warrior
I have recently tested positive progression a little, but unfortunately if bet selection without edge, they are not able to overcome the house edge.
I even found selections on 2 dozens with positive progression, which withstood 500 k spins, but on the wheel without zero.
If there is a zero in my simulations, everything loses.

I have several options for very aggressive versions of positive progression to be tested, but rather they will not bring long term profit.

Hi Warrior - i have 60.000 placed bets flat betting and with positiv progression that overcome the house edge with La Partage Rule.
Even Money - maybe you can learn from that - i can pm you the author name if you want - i base all my testing upon similar methods and principals.

I just did a test where i gain 100 units with 1000 placed bets flat betting ...

Cheers

Quote from: Sputnik on March 23, 2018, 01:34:15 PM
Hi Warrior - i have 60.000 placed bets flat betting and with positiv progression that overcome the house edge with La Partage Rule.
Even Money - maybe you can learn from that - i can pm you the author name if you want - i base all my testing upon similar methods and principals.

I just did a test where i gain 100 units with 1000 placed bets flat betting ...

Cheers

For sure send me a pm I would like to test it  thankyou.

Quote from: ozon on March 23, 2018, 10:00:16 AM
Hello Warrior
I have recently tested positive progression a little, but unfortunately if bet selection without edge, they are not able to overcome the house edge.
I even found selections on 2 dozens with positive progression, which withstood 500 k spins, but on the wheel without zero.
If there is a zero in my simulations, everything loses.

I have several options for very aggressive versions of positive progression to be tested, but rather they will not bring long term profit.

Thanks for the reply ozon ,that pesky zero.

PM Sent ... Cheers

Sputnik = satellite of EC bets 


You will never become rich like Richard if your repertoire contains only outside bets, unless you have open your third eye...! 

This topic was probably one of the most important topics in this forum.
I wanted to refer, however, to the matter related to this topic.
  In the first post Mike, he wrote that it is possible to reach the edge, absorbing losses from the first 3 losses of bets.
I think he tried to do it himself, but I do not know if he achieved the goal.
He also wrote that waiting for 3 virtual losses does not make sense. But he wrote about roulette, where the distribution of even bets is equal , minus zero.

And I mean baccarat, where the bets are not equal, The simulation shows that runs of the banker are longer, which translates to a slight edge in this direction.
  My question is this.
Whether using virtual losing bets for banker, we are able to reduce the casino's advantage.

I noticed the original post was missing and so nobody would really have the foggiest what it was all about.
Here is the 'wayback' link so anybody can read what was originally said in the opening post.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170420212412/https://betselection.cc/even-chance-8/how-to-get-an-edge-flat-betting-(in-theory)

edit: The URL link is not archived or something along those lines, however you can still access it manually if that makes any sense!

There most definitely is a way to get ahead by flat betting.

Just almost all players, at least those in all the B&M's I go to and have ever been at, main floor bac and high limit bac, I would have to say an unofficial 98 out of 100 will never stop with a few units.

Once again, I have written extensively, IMO about psych and reality of bac gaming and how to get the best chance of gathering up some sizable wins, capitalizing on groups, sections and opportunities, etc.  I have experienced almost a turn around in leaving the table with a profit in sizable amounts versus that of a few units.

But, yes.  Flat betting can work the same as anything else with less risk, but less chance to win larger amounts.

Time is the players enemy #1.  Everything falls behind the time factor.

+1 and reversal +0 works most of the times, but sooner or later the sequence comes and gives you -8 or any value you set as stop loss.
You might win +13 and get -8 and then again +10 and again -8 and sooner or later you will find your self at even plus-minus the house edge.

The test has already been done with 1.7 house edge for 60.000 trails flat betting.
I can only see one way around this dilemma and achieve one-year gambling with no loss or even more, but then is not flat betting anymore.
My conclusion is that you can use a level accumulation strategy.

Cheers

Flat betting is my personal preference. On saying that, I will use a positive progression if a section of the shoe looks like it's heading for a run of a streak/chop or what I would define as a 'staggered' chop. Obviously nobody knows what's coming out beforehand, but you do need to have something in your armoury which can identify the switches quickly if you want to profit from flat betting. It's no good losing a few units at the end of one section just to possibly win one unit on the next few decisions before another couple of losses if you hope to be successful. Asym is right in one respect! You better know your 'first bet' is going to be a winning one the majority of the time because then you have some wiggle room.

Quote from: Bally6354 on March 02, 2019, 11:13:02 PM
Flat betting is my personal preference. On saying that, I will use a positive progression if a section of the shoe looks like it's heading for a run of a streak/chop or what I would define as a 'staggered' chop. Obviously nobody knows what's coming out beforehand, but you do need to have something in your armoury which can identify the switches quickly if you want to profit from flat betting. It's no good losing a few units at the end of one section just to possibly win one unit on the next few decisions before another couple of losses if you hope to be successful. Asym is right in one respect! You better know your 'first bet' is going to be a winning one the majority of the time because then you have some wiggle room.

Simply put, good logic in many ways. 

Interpretation plays a huge part of baccarat, IMO. 

Think, Know, Act on Gut, Cut out False and No Good Influences.

Quote from: alrelax on March 07, 2018, 02:05:23 PM
"So IF we take Mikes assumption that after 3 losses somehow mr. edge waits around the corner and ADD this statement here, it seems to me, it needs one or two bits more than just wait for 3 losses to start betting":

It needs a huge amount more!  It does not work that way in the casino.  People try all the time.

The people mix reality with fallacy and dreams all while they are in the wrong, 'frame-of-mind'.

I have literally seen well established, smart, long time players at baccarat lose 6 to 12 hands repeatedly.  True they do not have to wager but their ego-mood-bank roll-past experiences and much more----all comes into play.  On top of it all people do not take very lightly to buying in with $10,000.00 or much more and than losing it.  I watched a female baccarat player last week actually point to the board at midway and verbally cite, "Look it has never went past 4 repeats for both banker and player".  It was at hand 43.  I told her, please understand things change and very seldom does the board hold true the whole shoe, 80 hands.  She wagers table max in 4 spots, which was $8,000.00 for the cut to the players side and 4 more bankers came out.  The time to do what she did was when it was happening in the sections that already prevailed.  But, people look for what they convince themselves are 'solid' and 'great' wagers to make and then bet on them.  That is why the casinos put those boards there, that is why they provide pens and score cards, they want you to do that.  Simple, no?  I have written about it all and many people will not truly understand or believe me, because  they have not been in a real casino or their exposure to a real casino is not very much.

I truly think it takes longer than 10 years of casino play to even start to understand the casino, the game, and yourself.  But hey--I might be totally wrong!  I don't know.

I never followed this thread much - until the other day with nothing else to do I began reading when I came across the above. I'll be honest, I had to chuckle when I got to the anecdote about the lady who lost 4IAR betting against.  Al is right, shoes seldom maintain a "signature."  IMO, the only mistakes the lady made were continuing after the first loss and after losing the first bet she already was at table max so she had no where to go to do more than break even if she won the 2nd hand.  But that's not what cracked me up.

What cracked me up was this statement by Al: "The time to do what she did was when it was happening in the sections that already prevailed." Huh?  So IOW as soon as you see a 4 IAR go once or maybe twice it is more likely to be a winner next time? Or the longer a "presentment" continues the less likely it is to go further?

So I guess the lesson is, PLAY THE HISTORY but play it sooner than later.

I will return to my last post.
My question was about assumptions.
If we determine the player series is the same as the banker series, we know that the banker series are slightly longer and more frequent, but this is the minimum percentage.
We know at the same time that the payment is not equal.
My question is whether we will save 0.15 unit if we play after three virtual failures of  banker
Bet selection would be after 3 times the virtual loss of banker play till win for 2 or 3 hands.