A fun test question. Let's pretend that one of the systems/methods/strategies on the board has an edge
The player has a 6% edge, and plans on playing off and on over a period of several days for a total of 10k spins. (I don't care about or want to know how the edge is obtained, and who's method it is. This is not a debate about whether a system works or not.)
The player's starting bankroll is $1,000. Which player will likely win the most money, and receive the most attention in the form of sex and love from his/her spouse or friend. Player 1,2, or 3?
1. The player flat bets $50 every spin on the top numbers.
2. The player bets 1% of his bankroll distributed over his best numbers? (His initial bet is only $10 in total.)
3. A player that runs an aggressive up as you lose betting progression 5,10,20,40,80,100,200?
Number one, two, or three?
I've got a better idea. Let's pretend that you don't have an advantage. Now, for the sake of argument, can any player, playing even chance bets, win more than they lose at some point early in any session?
If you agree that is's possible to be ahead a few wins, then can that same person let the house's money, and only the house's money, ride for two more winning attempts, just to see if the player can win a little more, without any risk to that player's original bankroll on these attempts?
I don't think the triggerNazi union will like this much, but some of us in the gambling world just might really like it. I do. Course you always run the risk that there are people here and there that will label you defective in some cliched style. Byut the best thing to do about them is to ignore them.
Quote from: Gizmotron on May 19, 2018, 08:22:11 PM
I've got a better idea. Let's pretend that you don't have an advantage. Now, for the sake of argument, can any player, playing even chance bets, win more than they lose at some point early in any session?
If you agree that is's possible to be ahead a few wins, then can that same person let the house's money, and only the house's money, ride for two more winning attempts, just to see if the player can win a little more, without any risk to that player's original bankroll on these attempts?
I don't think the triggerNazi union will like this much, but some of us in the gambling world just might really like it. I do. Course you always run the risk that there are people here and there that will label you defective in some cliched style. Byut the best thing to do about them is to ignore them.
Gizmo,
It's this simple.
If you don't have an edge, then you CAN'T win in the long run.
Quote from: Xander on May 19, 2018, 11:51:50 PM
Gizmo,
It's this simple. If you don't have an edge, then you CAN'T win in the long run.
\
So, are you gonna define "long run", hey hey?
Quote from: soxfan on May 20, 2018, 12:01:19 AM
\
So, are you gonna define "long run", hey hey?
Think of the long run as being the point where you're luck won't be enough to win and you're results match the long term expectation.
What you really want to know is at what point you're destined to become a permanent loser. That point in time comes much sooner than the long run. ;) Generally that point is where a five standard deviation win is no longer enough to overcome the house edge when flat betting. Like it or not, if you can't improve the accuracy of your predictions, then that little house edge will eventually wipe you out, regardless of your progression.
It seems very clear to me that the amount of time a player spends playing a single session of baccarat is a drop in the ocean of long term probability. This would suggest that over a short period, (one shoe or less), the Law of Small Numbers reigns supreme which means that in terms of probability, ANYTHING can happen - and likely will.
That, of course leads to negative expectancy which can only be beaten, as Xander so wisely explained it, by improving betting selections.
Anything we, as an intelligent, informed and experienced group of professional can do to increase our betting decision proficiency would assist all of us dramatically.
Q.E.D.
Just look at the title of this thread:"Up as you lose, flat betting, up as you win. Which is best?"
This will be difficult for math oriented absolutists to stomach but the answer is in the second half of the title. Just consider that most people stop when they have depleted all or as much as they can stand of their bankrolls. They play to lose. What bothers math oriented players is that they won't admit that a few players play to win. It's inconceivable that a player can be ahead in an even chance game and that reaching a realistic point they would end the session while they are up. In other words, up as you win.
Ever seen a candlestick chart for a stock trading graph? Did you know that when you graph an even chance gambling game you get the same kind of candlestick track. Now the game can follow the expectation required by statistical dogma. It almost always tracks in a general downward angle. But there are moments while doing so that track upward while still going down in general. Those moments are identifiable to a very smart person like myself. Just because I chose to see them and exploit them does not make them disappear for people that chose to deny their existence. And this is the critical part of the point being made. Just because a person denies the existence of these upward steps in the win loss outcomes, it does not make them not exist. So we come to the reason I point this out. Math oriented neo-experts are trying to impress others with subjective arguments. I said that just to hook the ego's of those that have and will continue to mislead others. I expect them to offer no answer to my observation of them other than cliche and ridicule. It comes with the territory on gambling forums. They refuse to admit that a quit while you are ahead player can win long term. Yet we see this by day traders and swing traders every day in the stock market. Funny how they did not get the memo.
Quote from: Xander on May 19, 2018, 05:41:12 PM
1. The player flat bets $50 every spin on the top numbers.
2. The player bets 1% of his bankroll distributed over his best numbers? (His initial bet is only $10 in total.)
3. A player that runs an aggressive up as you lose betting progression 5,10,20,40,80,100,200?
Number one, two, or three?
My vote goes to 2, followed by 1, and lastly (least effective) would be 3.
Quote from: Gizmotron on May 20, 2018, 03:35:16 AM
They refuse to admit that a quit while you are ahead player can win long term. Yet we see this by day traders and swing traders every day in the stock market. Funny how they did not get the memo.
Gizmo,
We got the memo alright, in fact we're sick of getting it, we just think it's nonsense. Here's the thing about hit & run. In order for it to work, you have to know when to hit and when to run. In other words, there have to be genuine opportunities. But in a game like roulette (or baccarat), there are none because previous outcomes don't influence future outcomes and all patterns are equally likely.
And your analogy with trading is misplaced. Stock prices CAN follow definite trends because of the herd mentality. There are psychological reasons why following a trend is often a good bet, but obviously these factors don't exist in roulette because it's just a ball and a wheel.
Quote from: Mike on May 20, 2018, 06:20:48 AM
Gizmo,
We got the memo alright, in fact we're sick of getting it, we just think it's nonsense. Here's the thing about hit & run. In order for it to work, you have to know when to hit and when to run. In other words, there have to be genuine opportunities. But in a game like roulette (or baccarat), there are none because previous outcomes don't influence future outcomes and all patterns are equally likely.
And your analogy with trading is misplaced. Stock prices CAN follow definite trends because of the herd mentality. There are psychological reasons why following a trend is often a good bet, but obviously these factors don't exist in roulette because it's just a ball and a wheel.
OK, I get that you and your "we" crowd are tired of all this. But now you are selling more snake oil with "hit & run" is actually "quit while you are ahead." Is that really true?
So let's look closer at this thing you keep trying to pawn off on the rest of us. This: "previous outcomes don't influence future outcomes and all patterns are equally likely." It's amazing to me that all you guys in your "cult" keep standing on this simple to understand axiom. Of course past spins don't cause random opportunities to occur. Any simpleton should know that. So why is it that you guys never get that memo? Is it because you need an excuse to close your minds or to keep them closed? Is it some kind of safe place? Is it the argument that you think you can always win and that shuts down debate? I think it is some kind of Kryptonite for you guys instead. The sky is blue. Anyone that argues differently will be subject to one more of our boring lectures.
What about patterns being equally likely? Well at least we, we in our culture here, we thank you for now admitting that your team admits the existence of patterns. What about killer diller, long lasting, perfect patterns? Are they ever "likely?" I love the fact that all of this posturing implies that you would ignore a blatantly amazing opportunity, just to satisfy your position as a well informed person in our community.
Your implication that micro swings in candlestick charts happens because of trading activity, manipulations by trading activity, and by herd mentality all suggest that a cause must occur before you can speculate on swing changes. Why does there have to be a cause? It's just you suggesting that there is a cause that suggests success if anticipated, but never for Roulette. Is that actually logical? The charts go up and down in micro pulsations while having over all movements that indicate longer over all generalized changes. Who cares if they are the cause or effect of outside forces? They still move. Is my use of similar movements somehow negated just because you say there must be a cause? I'm telling you that there is not any cause whatsoever. Now please remember that the next time you spread your dogma all over the carpet.
Great discussion gentlemen. So in keeping with the sprit of the thread. I would like to propose another fun question. Let's assume you have an adequate bankroll, decided upon a reasonable stop loss and you are now at the the baccarat table.
My "fun" question what is the best way to select your next bet:
1. Use past results as the basis of your decision ?
2. Utilize a math algorithm to predict the next bet ?
3. Follow your intuition ?
4. Use combination of the above ?
5. Other ?
What is is, what is not, is not.
1. Use past results as the basis of your decision.
I use past results because it is the only way to know how the session is going. It is the only way to know when enough is enough, in any case.
Quote from: Mike on May 20, 2018, 06:10:56 AM
My vote goes to 2, followed by 1, and lastly (least effective) would be 3.
Mike,
I'm not surprised that you knew the answer.
Player one very likely went broke. A bankroll of only 1k would have been insufficient. If his bankroll was in the neighborhood of 15 to 20k and If he did survive the fluctuations of variance then the player would have won about 30k
Player three very likely would have gone bust as well. The garish progression would have required a bankroll in the neighborhood of 60 to 70k. A 1k bankroll would have been utterly insufficient. Had the player been successful he could have won around 137k.
Player two is the real winner. Using a realistic bankroll of only 1k the player would have won around 403k
Thanks Giz, You're first ! I appreciate the prompt (and honest) reply.
So, using Xander's idea of 1% of bankroll and your confirmation of utilizing past results, we're making process.
So before we create the ultimate "BETSELECTION" Baccarat strategy, I think it wise to hear from more players.
What do you say team?
So, how best to use the past results for that 1% initial bet........
My 2 cents on how much of your bankroll you should risk.
You should take the full amount you are willing to risk and cut it into 5 parts.
You then take one of those one-fifth parts to the casino.
For each session you can use a one-fifth part if you want to adjust the above.
You then make bets that are either the minimum allowed or one-tenth of the one-fifth that you brought to the session, if the table limits allow. So you have ten tries at the high level to make your goal, hopefully quickly. The minimum bets are used to create a real-results data stream from.
A smart player would end the session at 30% of a session's bankroll up, if they do well. A smart player would know if a session was difficult and end it before using the entire one-fifth session bankroll up. It's possible to fight to get back to near even before quitting. This MM tactic is about dealing with randomness, that can never be controlled, only reacted to. You can see what you are getting in your active session even though others here say that you can't. It is far more likely that it is just they that can't see what they are getting. So they soft sell you that as some kind of soap salesman. You must figure it out for yourself. Leave the plantation of your mind. Take the red pill Neo, and move into the world of the real.
BTW: 10% of 20% is 2%. That's 2% of your entire money risked on one single high-level bet. Not that far from 1%.
Thanks GIZ. That's good advice on the bankroll. % of bank is a solid method of play because it keeps you in the game. Also, IMO, your bankroll increases in direct proportion to your results.
Itlr, you can't win at a negative edge game no matter what, you can just diliute the inevitable risk of ruin at best.
If someone would think otherwise, he/she could present his/her work to the scientific world, maybe trying to get the Nobel prize worth millions.
The only way to demonstrate that some EV- independent games are beatable is presenting exhaustive studies that in some speicific spots unrandomness prevail to the randomness.
as.
Hmm. A person with 6% edge against house should bet flat with such an amount that can let him survive in the worst possible scenarios. After an obvious enhancement in the bankroll(due to piling profits), he should increase his base bet and continue to bet flat on that amount. Gradually, the 6% edge and this way of increasing the base bet will optimize his profits and keep him safe as well.
Quote from: Albalaha on May 22, 2018, 03:26:06 AM
Hmm. A person with 6% edge against house should bet flat with such an amount that can let him survive in the worst possible scenarios. After an obvious enhancement in the bankroll(due to piling profits), he should increase his base bet and continue to bet flat on that amount. Gradually, the 6% edge and this way of increasing the base bet will optimize his profits and keep him safe as well.
Exactly this.
as.
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on May 22, 2018, 03:52:52 AM
Exactly this.
as.
Thanks. If I can get an edge of 6% by my bets, I will ruin the casino, in the same manner as a casino does to average players. Nice hypothesis.
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on May 22, 2018, 02:40:28 AM
Itlr, you can't win at a negative edge game no matter what, you can just diliute the inevitable risk of ruin at best.
If someone would think otherwise, he/she could present his/her work to the scientific world, maybe trying to get the Nobel prize worth millions.
The only way to demonstrate that some EV- independent games are beatable is presenting exhaustive studies that in some speicific spots unrandomness prevail to the randomness.
as.
ASYM, you are so very right, players cannot win on a continuous basis and on a repetitive schedule the game of baccarat. But the real smart ones do quite well at it because they curtail their emotions, schedules and beliefs.
Opposite prevails at times, following at others. A combination of everything in between during and after as well! People perpetrate thousands of misnomers regarding winning at baccarat and it makes good copy most of the time. People challenge and people agree, people disagree. Meanings are lost and yet--the game has much better odds than most all others--just people really abuse their 'sections' and fail to recognize what is reasonable and actually as stupid as it sounds, what actually does win and with occasional presentment. But, they have to and need to turn those infrequent winning presentments into gospel, triggers and math/science. They all attempt to deduce down everything in baccarat to math and science because they are so smart, intelligent and admit--the rules of the game beating you due to its consistency and not yours--does not apply to them. LOL, LOL to the MAX!
Hype--emotions and desires set in and take over, plain and simple. Doom and loss follows, 99.99% of the time. Except to you that player that knows what wagers will win and why they will win, etc.,--you because you are exempt due to your intelligence.
What we are told or wind up believing, is what our friends, co-players and teachers tell us about the game. Those players that learn on their own do get influenced over others, but only the visual aspect of it all--and that is strong. When you sit there and observe another player turn $500.00 or $1,000.00 into $20,000.00 and he wholeheartedly believes it was math and science combined, and maybe it was that day--unlike the previous 8 or 15 times you did not witness that he wagered the same exact trends/patterns/numbers/results, etc., and totally lost. Lost $24,000.00 or $34,000.00, to make the $20,000.00 he just won. He is hyped, excited, in another world, boasting and you are eating it all up, hook-line and sinker as they say. Earmarked your next 8 to 10 attempts to pretty much copy what that player just 'proved' worked without doubt, after all--you seen it with your own eyes.
The key is a certain amount of win that is multiplied many times from the risk amount of money spent to win. It might be three wins out of 10 for 3 weeks where the win amount was greater than the risk amount lost at others. Then 4 wins out of the next 10 the following month. Then out of the 3rd set of 10, the preceding month, 3 additional wins that totaled far superior to the 7 he lost when added up. Then back to 2 out of 10 wins. You can and will stay ahead of the game by far, if only you can truly control, recognize and be fully 100% consciousness of your emotions, desires, visions and thoughts. For, it is those that change your way of thinking and your actual great beliefs beyond all other things when playing baccarat. You are not stupid or unintelligent or even have no sign of the game, you just let your mind and feeling walk away and separate themselves from you and your frame-of-mind is all.
But everything you read on the internet is build, build, build and grow greater bankrolls, wagers and proceed to larger and larger plateaus. More and more. Simply setting each up to fail, and that is exactly what happens, time after time, after time after time. The highest majority of the time, the casino doesn't have anything to actually do with your losing, it is yourself and your frame-of-mind that causes your baccarat loss, continued loss and future losses.
It is so elementary and so basic, you are missing it. You concentrate on the game and you each believe you are the country's best gambler, you fail to see the most elementary mistakes you commit and bring on to yourself, time after time.
Maybe you are admiring the wrong things, the wrong type of people and fallen prey to the aura of the surroundings? Put extra emphasis into staying completely conscious, maintaining complete reality and experience while leaving all false, all erotic, all taboo, all hype, and all those false positives checked at the door you enter the casino. Maybe, just maybe that is what you really need instead of searching for the wager that just won Billy Bob $20k because he continued to wager for the 2nd hand after the double repeat that fell off after the natural cut to the opposite side, etc.?
QuoteYou can and will stay ahead of the game by far, if only you can truly control, recognize and be fully 100% consciousness of your emotions, desires, visions and thoughts.
I'm sorry, but this simply is not true. The house edge doesn't care about your emotions, desires or thoughts. Like it or not, in the long term you can not win or lose at a rate that exceeds the house edge.
In order to remain a consistent winner over a long period of time, you must have an edge over the game, and unfortunately discipline doesn't provide it.
Quote from: Xander on May 22, 2018, 08:19:13 PM
I'm sorry, but this simply is not true. The house edge doesn't care about your emotions, desires or thoughts. Like it or not, in the long term you can not win or lose at a rate that exceeds the house edge.
In order to remain a consistent winner over a long period of time, you must have an edge over the game, and unfortunately discipline doesn't provide it.
You talk silly backwards math/stat lingo. That is a great fit in over at beat the casino guaranteed for only $51.69 a month, etc., etc. I know people, plenty of them that lost at far greater than the house advantage, like 100% of the time, because they stay until they lose it all, each and every time. Smart? Nope! Reality? Yes. Period. Done.
I don't know of the site. I wouldn't pay a dime to visit it either.
Like it or not, though, the math doesn't lie. I find that the people that disagree do so because they don't comprehend the effects of variance. Variance isn't something that you can avoid with gaming discipline. It just is what it is, "luck." Variance is accurately described mathematically, and when you have the edge, it's nothing more than an annoyance at best.
No arguments, I admit--you win, perfect! Carry on. Cheers! Have a nice day.
Quote from: Xander on May 22, 2018, 08:55:19 PM
I don't know of the site. I wouldn't pay a dime to visit it either.
Like it or not, though, the math doesn't lie. I find that the people that disagree do so because they don't comprehend the effects of variance. Variance isn't something that you can avoid with gaming discipline. It just is what it is, "luck." Variance is accurately described mathematically, and when you have the edge, it's nothing more than an annoyance at best.
You obviously don't play and it's good that you don't. Quite correct, cannot avoid variance. But there is two aspects to it. One is short term and the other long term. Here is a bit of short term variance from couple days ago: LLL W LLLLL W LLLL W LLLL Ouch! Only won 4 out of first 49 hands!. Well that just means the casino owes me some wins. When you're down that low you generally will come back a good bit to at least 45% but if yo just get back to the expected EV you're gonna recoup. It took another 100 hands to get back up but it did prove to be profitable at a net of $420.00 with no higher than $50.00 bet. I had a profit as soon as I hit 49%. Fortunately the VARIANCE goes both ways!
I chose that session because it has such a low swing. That's unusual but it does happen oon occasion.
Quote from: Jimske on May 24, 2018, 09:22:41 PMLLL W LLLLL W LLLL W LLLL Ouch! Only won 4 out of first 49 hands!.
oooops! 4 of 19 not 49.
Quote from: Jimske on May 24, 2018, 09:22:41 PMLLL W LLLLL W LLLL W LLLL Ouch! Only won 4 out of first 49 hands!.
oooops! 4 of 19 not 49.
Quote from: Jimske on May 25, 2018, 12:21:50 PM
... 4 of 19 ... "LLL W LLLLL W LLLL W LLLL Ouch! "
Yep, that is a very steep dive into shallow water. It happens to me about 20% of the time when I start to play money. I've also opened with a massive win streak before too. I even experienced a four day repeating characteristic of the same 18 numbers dominating all day play. It all goes to bet big when you are doing good and bet small when you are doing bad.
But it looks like you played through it flat betting. Interesting tactic. It's the only way to confirm that eventually you might swing above the statistical expectation for a brief moment and reach a "quit while you are ahead moment." That sounds like defiance of winning without a mathematical edge to me. It's a bold way to play. But it really flies in the face of those that say you must lose in the long run.To me it looks like an edge though. You control when to stop. You can stop at a point that is near breaking even instead of at the killer point of 4 wins to 15 losses. You can play to negate downturns as an edge. Selecting the stop point is an edge, I think.
Quote from: Jimske on May 24, 2018, 09:22:41 PM
You obviously don't play and it's good that you don't. Quite correct, cannot avoid variance. But there is two aspects to it. One is short term and the other long term. Here is a bit of short term variance from couple days ago: LLL W LLLLL W LLLL W LLLL Ouch! Only won 4 out of first 49 hands!. Well that just means the casino owes me some wins. When you're down that low you generally will come back a good bit to at least 45% but if yo just get back to the expected EV you're gonna recoup. It took another 100 hands to get back up but it did prove to be profitable at a net of $420.00 with no higher than $50.00 bet. I had a profit as soon as I hit 49%. Fortunately the VARIANCE goes both ways!
I chose that session because it has such a low swing. That's unusual but it does happen oon occasion.
Your comment doesn't even make sense. And "LLLWLLL?" This is tracking nonsense. ::) There's no value to it. It's just leading you down the path of gambler's fallacy. There is no expectation that you will recoup anything. The random walk just dictates that moving forward your expectation is to just lose at the house edge, not for events to catch back up or to make up for some kind of loss. I hope you're not implying that it will.
Xander,
The best MM (according to you) is nothing more than Kelly criterion which is working like a positive progression, or "up as you win" to lay it in your terms.
You should know better by now, negative, positive and flat bets MMs have no advantage in comparison with each other, only a selection could generate a real edge.
1) Up as you lose favors more balanced distribution and fails when there are extensive losses.
2) Up as you win favors less balanced distribution and fails when there is quite evenly distribution of wins and losses.
3) Flat bets are a mild approach which both, the BR highs and lows, are milder, less intensive fluctuations both ways, but all in all offers no advantage.
When you ask what is better, positive or negative, is like you are asking: "what is more probable, a win after a win or a win after a loss?"
You may even extend that from a single win to 100 wins/losses, or a session (whatever the definition of session might be), or a month of results, or...whatever!
The main principle doesn't change regardless of the quantities of results involved, the more will only magnify what already exists, whether it's something positive or negative.
The same goes for another popular misconception; "what's better, betting more or betting less numbers?"
The majority mistakenly believes that less is better, but if this was true then all we had to do was to pick 2 to 4 numbers in order to become victorious like Ken! ;D
Once again, it's NOT about how many, the quantity, but about "what","which" and this is being determined by the timing effect, or synchronisation if you will.
Consider results as a frequency and try to synch yours to it, by swimming against the torrent brings no profit, nor glory!
In regards to your original question, "what MM is better...", my answer is nothing when you have no winning selection and on the same time, every MM when you have a really good selection.
Money managements only change the distribution of profit and loss, whether frequent small chunks, or infrequent larger ones, all in all provide no advantage.
Long term is the accumulation of many sessions and each session includes many bets, since we are not 100% certain for a single bet (any single bet) then what's the point of increasing and/or decreasing in spin by spin (hand by hand, decision to decision) basis?
If we were 100% sure then we would wanted to place as much as possible in that single bet, right?
Therefore the point of MMs is to accumulate a profit within a total of bets.
How many bets should this total be?
That depends from the general probability of the bet, more probability the less times, the less probability the more times our total bets should aim for.
Everything is a trade between time and money, gamble is no exception.
You don't need 100,000 bets in order to realize that something is not working, as a matter of fact you don't even need 10,000 bets, the same could be said for the opposite.
Like they say; "the good day shows from the mourning...", what's more possible to occur will happen first.
What could be confusing and deceptive is that some progressions are causing small, regular wins and big infrequent losses.
So unless you are using such progression, it will be clear the value of your bet selection, especially when you flat bet.
Don't take me wrong, I'm not advocating flat betting, a sophisticated MM could boost the profits, but only if there is a really good bet selection in the first place.
There are 2 kind of probabilities, one is the sequential which speculates about the order of the results and the other is the general probability which indicates the totals.
Thus if we take a 50-50 chance for 100 bets then according to the theoretical mean we should expect 50 to go one way and 50 to go the other way, I suggest you to consider such averages with a grain of salt...
On the other hand, sequential probability would have too many permutations to distribute 50 VS 50 in 100 outcomes, when progressions are aiming to win in a certain order of results then are being challenged by the sequential probability.
Like I said, there could be 1 permutation which have 50 times in a row for one side and then 50 times in a row for the other, it could be one side after the other interchangeably for 100 times, the point is that are so MANY ways, permutations to distribute THAT mean (50/50), let alone for 49/51 or 51/49 or 48/52...!
By attempting to predict the order your bets are just drops in the randomness ocean!
Why casinos are above this issue?
It's because they are not attempting to predict the sequences, the order of the outcomes, but are capitalizing in something much more solid, the totals in the long term...!
It all comes down to the perception and the approach, if you think and act like there's no tomorrow then eventually you will find out that there is not for you because this is what you have chosen, to live and die in the short term.
Xander,
Quote-Blue Angel The best MM (according to you) is nothing more than Kelly criterion which is working like a positive progression, or "up as you win" to lay it in your terms.
The best progression is a modified Kelly. Edge/expectation x confidence level in betting conditions
Quote1) Up as you lose favors more balanced distribution and fails when there are extensive losses.
The progresson to which I'm referring, which is like the Kelly, enables the player theoretically indefinitely subdivide their bankroll if they encounter long losing stretches.
Quote2) Up as you win favors less balanced distribution and fails when there is quite evenly distribution of wins and losses
.
Up as you win provides the largest possible win over basically all scenarios. I'm guessing you have zero experience playing with an edge and using such a progression.
Quote3) Flat bets are a mild approach which both, the BR highs and lows, are milder, less intensive fluctuations both ways, but all in all offers no advantage.
Flat bets open the door for larger losses during draw downs caused by variance. Again, betting a percentage of your bankroll as I described earlier in the thread is vastly superior.
QuoteWhen you ask what is better, positive or negative, is like you are asking: "what is more probable, a win after a win or a win after a loss?"
You may even extend that from a single win to 100 wins/losses, or a session (whatever the definition of session might be), or a month of results, or...whatever!
No that's ludicrous. I'm talking about when the gambler has the edge. You appear to be talking about something else.
There is a correct answer. And the correct answer has to do with the probability of ruin, and what provides the opportunity to win the most while risking the least amount of money. An up as you lose progression, mathematically doesn't make sense when compared to betting a percentage of your bankroll
when the gambler has an edge.
QuoteThe main principle doesn't change regardless of the quantities of results involved, the more will only magnify what already exists, whether it's something positive or negative.
I'm not completely sure what it is that you're trying to say in the phrase above, and it appears that you don't know either. The cut and paste job from the article you copied it from doesn't exactly fit in the discussion.
QuoteThe same goes for another popular misconception; "what's better, betting more or betting less numbers?"
The majority mistakenly believes that less is better, but if this was true then all we had to do was to pick 2 to 4 numbers in order to become victorious like Ken! ;D
Again, there is a correct answer for this as well. The answer is, on how many numbers do you actually have an edge, what is their edge, and what is their effect on variance.
QuoteOnce again, it's NOT about how many, the quantity, but about "what","which" and this is being determined by the timing effect, or synchronisation if you will.
Consider results as a frequency and try to synch yours to it, by swimming against the torrent brings no profit, nor glory!
Again, your using words that don't fit the discussion. "Synchronisation," "swimming against torrent???" ::)
What matters is winning as much as possible while risking the least amount of money. In the end the correct answer is to bet a percentage of your bankroll at each spin using the progression that I've described.
Probably you are the one who doesn't take a hint...such a pity!
There are selections which no matter how much money you bet they are generating net profit, the size of the profit only changes.
But there are not any MMs which are winning regardless of the selection.
What you suggest will not be the optimal when you have frequent ups and downs in your BR because when you raise it will be followed by losses and when you'll decrease it will win less on the forthcoming wins.
You think it's better because it doesn't change in spin by spin basis, but after all is like a partial parlay in a greater results' scale.
It would be best if losses and wins all fall one after the other, in bunches, but probability doesn't work this way...
Whether you want to understand it or not, it is not my problem, you brought forth a subject about money managements which is of secondary importance and then you think that you are in position to judge my abilities by saying:
"I'm guessing you have zero experience playing with an edge and using such a progression." ...allow me to know better what my experience is and what I'm doing.
QuoteThere are selections which no matter how much money you bet they are generating net profit, the size of the profit only changes.
But there are not any MMs which are winning regardless of the selection.
So? What's your point? A progression alone can not turn a negative expectation game into a positive one. When the player has the edge the best progression is to bet a percentage of your bankroll at each spin or hand.
QuoteWhat you suggest will not be the optimal when you have frequent ups and downs in your BR because when you raise it will be followed by losses and when you'll decrease it will win less on the forthcoming wins.
You think it's better because it doesn't change in spin by spin basis, but after all is like a partial parlay in a greater results' scale.
It would be best if losses and wins all fall one after the other, in bunches, but probability doesn't work this way...
You're obviously looking at very short term results based on your limited experience, rather than extended periods of time. The optimum strategy is as I've stated.
QuoteWhether you want to understand it or not, it is not my problem, you brought forth a subject about money managements which is of secondary importance and then you think that you are in position to judge my abilities by saying:
"I'm guessing you have zero experience playing with an edge and using such a progression." ...allow me to know better what my experience is and what I'm doing.
Sorry, but based on the replies that you've written it appears that you have little experience in dealing with progressions when the player has the edge.
Again I must congratulate all of you contributing to this thread for the massively, intelligent, interesting and relevant information that is being introduced. Indeed any money management system cannot overcome an inadequate bet selection protocol.
When you have a betting protocol in place that allows you to win consistently, creating a positive edge, then of course, a structured money management system will allow the player to maximize winnings and minimize losses.
So now the big question, as professionals our main, or perhaps initial focus, should be on bet selection.
How, in an ocean of probabilities, do we gain a positive edge on say, Baccarat when an individual session (80 hands or less) represents a "drop in the ocean of probabilities ?
The only concrete tools we appear to have is past performance, developing trends and the like. Is there a method we could develop as a like-minded group, with various backgrounds and skills that would provide enough shift in betting protocol to give us that positive edge ?
I totally realize that each individual hand is essentially random, and that, "The past does not equal the future." HOWEVER, every session produces variable results and that may be our strength. The player who is able to step back and see the bigger picture of a string of outcomes, look at those outcomes in a new and different creative manner, may be able to instinctively and intelligently predict (guess) at a different and superior level.
If you add up all of the years of experience each one of you have personally, collectively, as a group we likely have centuries of experience, right here in this form. What an amazing privilege !
I sincerely believe that there really is a very subtle difference between losing to the house advantage and shifting the bet protocol to a consistent player advantage and if anyone can figure that out, this is the group that will do it.
Next step ?
Garry
Quote from: Blue_Angel on May 25, 2018, 04:13:04 PM
The same goes for another popular misconception; "what's better, betting more or betting less numbers?"
The majority mistakenly believes that less is better, but if this was true then all we had to do was to pick 2 to 4 numbers in order to become victorious like Ken! ;D
You're right in that betting fewer numbers doesn't give any advantage in itself, its value lies in the fact that the variance is higher betting fewer numbers, and exposes less to the house edge. When you don't have an edge, betting fewer numbers means the swings will be larger in BOTH directions. A gambler relies on these swings if he wants to quit while ahead, but of course, because variance is a two-edge sword, it means that when betting fewer numbers the losses will also be larger. Either way (betting more or fewer numbers), in the absence of a real edge, the expectation (mean) will overcome short term variance eventually. The merit of fewer numbers lies in the duration of the swings which enables more opportunities to quit with a profit. But these are not "real" opportunities in the sense that they confer an edge; you're just relying on luck.
I have a brainless, no edge test to consider. I did it so that I can prove variance, randomness, has opportunities. Spin out 300 spins, any source that you consider fair, real spins if you must. Now track the results of just the red numbers as the winners and the others as losers. Now that takes care of having a bet selection, that includes a so called bet selection with an edge too.
With me so far? Now, if any of you have a rudimentary education, let's see if you can find opportunities that occurred in that 300 spins among the red winners. Don't give me any of that stuff that it all happened in the past. Just because you are unskilled at recognizing an opportunity, as it happens, does not mean that someone else with the right skills is as helpless as you claim to be.
I'll bet there were at least two sleeping dozens that lasted more than 14 spins in a row. There were probably at least one streak of the even chances that lasted the same for 12 to 16 times in a row. There were dozens of streaks of singles. All these things are exploitable, even though there are intellectuals in this world that insist that they can't be. You guys are too sacrosanct for your own goods, and that you are blinded by a self serving arrogance. I don't have your definition of an edge. So what. All of that crud is summed up by this single experiment. I hope you approach all of life by your philosophy. Win at gambling or not, you are blind never the less. I think that is fitting too. There is no law of the universe that says you have to have an edge in order to win.
Quote from: Gizmotron on May 26, 2018, 02:01:59 PM
There is no law of the universe that says you have to have an edge in order to win.
Yes, of course, you could be lucky but luck is not controllable.
Quote from: owenslv on May 25, 2018, 11:49:48 PM
Again I must congratulate all of you contributing to this thread for the massively, intelligent, interesting and relevant information that is being introduced. Indeed any money management system cannot overcome an inadequate bet selection protocol.
When you have a betting protocol in place that allows you to win consistently, creating a positive edge, then of course, a structured money management system will allow the player to maximize winnings and minimize losses.
So now the big question, as professionals our main, or perhaps initial focus, should be on bet selection.
How, in an ocean of probabilities, do we gain a positive edge on say, Baccarat when an individual session (80 hands or less) represents a "drop in the ocean of probabilities ?
The only concrete tools we appear to have is past performance, developing trends and the like. Is there a method we could develop as a like-minded group, with various backgrounds and skills that would provide enough shift in betting protocol to give us that positive edge ?
I totally realize that each individual hand is essentially random, and that, "The past does not equal the future." HOWEVER, every session produces variable results and that may be our strength. The player who is able to step back and see the bigger picture of a string of outcomes, look at those outcomes in a new and different creative manner, may be able to instinctively and intelligently predict (guess) at a different and superior level.
If you add up all of the years of experience each one of you have personally, collectively, as a group we likely have centuries of experience, right here in this form. What an amazing privilege !
I sincerely believe that there really is a very subtle difference between losing to the house advantage and shifting the bet protocol to a consistent player advantage and if anyone can figure that out, this is the group that will do it.
Next step ?
Garry
Hey Garry, what's up?
Warming up the chair for me?
It would be a pity not to address your inquiry properly, but since you've posted that your selection is doing well for thousands of bets, then why don't you make the start by explaining about your selection criteria?
By doing so others would be encouraged to step forth and fulfill your request, what do you think?
Quote from: Gizmotron on May 25, 2018, 12:44:39 PM
Yep, that is a very steep dive into shallow water. It happens to me about 20% of the time when I start to play money. I've also opened with a massive win streak before too. I even experienced a four day repeating characteristic of the same 18 numbers dominating all day play. It all goes to bet big when you are doing good and bet small when you are doing bad.
But it looks like you played through it flat betting.
No, I don't flat bet.
QuoteYou control when to stop. You can stop at a point that is near breaking even instead of at the killer point of 4 wins to 15 losses. You can play to negate downturns as an edge. Selecting the stop point is an edge, I think.
Right. We can speed up, slow down, stop, but we just can't back up. The trick is learning when. Fortunately it's fairly forgiving due to the low negative expectation. For those who cannot grasp why we can't back up; the simple reason is we cannot recoup lossses by winning the small bets and losing the big ones.
Quote from: Mike on May 26, 2018, 07:34:40 AM
You're right in that betting fewer numbers doesn't give any advantage in itself, its value lies in the fact that the variance is higher betting fewer numbers, and exposes less to the house edge. When you don't have an edge, betting fewer numbers means the swings will be larger in BOTH directions. A gambler relies on these swings if he wants to quit while ahead, but of course, because variance is a two-edge sword, it means that when betting fewer numbers the losses will also be larger. Either way (betting more or fewer numbers), in the absence of a real edge, the expectation (mean) will overcome short term variance eventually. The merit of fewer numbers lies in the duration of the swings which enables more opportunities to quit with a profit. But these are not "real" opportunities in the sense that they confer an edge; you're just relying on luck.
Furthermore, all numbers are the same and are not the same on the same time!
If we consider them as static and fixed probabilities then are all the same, but what makes the difference is their condition, they all transit through all phases...and that is what someone should aim for, the tendencies/phases rather than the numbers themselves.
The progression must be adjusted according the expectation and the expectation must adapt the tendencies.
Which tendencies?
Those which we encounter on every session.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on May 26, 2018, 02:21:44 PM
Hey Garry, what's up?
Warming up the chair for me?
It would be a pity not to address your inquiry properly, but since you've posted that your selection is doing well for thousands of bets, then why don't you make the start by explaining about your selection criteria?
By doing so others would be encouraged to step forth and fulfill your request, what do you think?
Gary, please clarify. Are you proposing that a defined selection can overcome the EV?
My perspective is that no defined bet selection will overcome the EV. This is not to say we shouldn't use bet selections, just that we must understand their flaws and adjust for them.
J
Quote from: Blue_Angel on May 26, 2018, 02:34:12 PM
Furthermore, all numbers are the same and are not the same on the same time!
If we consider them as static and fixed probabilities then are all the same, but what makes the difference is their condition, they all transit through all phases...and that is what someone should aim for, the tendencies/phases rather than the numbers themselves.
The progression must be adjusted according the expectation and the expectation must adapt the tendencies.
Which tendencies?
Those which we encounter on every session.
Well said. allow me to repeat. "
The progression must be adjusted according the expectation and the expectation must adapt the tendencies."
Quote from: Jimske on May 26, 2018, 02:28:14 PM
We can speed up, slow down, stop, but we just can't back up.
Great point. I never heard that before in the past 12 tears.
I've created a progression for EC bets which it succeeds as long as there are 25% wins out of the total of the bets placed.
This means that the expectation is being reduced to half of 50% (roughly).
The ratio of: 1 out of 4, 2 out of 8, 3 out of 12, 4 out of 16, 5 out of 20, 6 out of 24, 7 out of 28, 8 out of 32, 9 out of 36, 10 out of 40...etc
Can we get 10 out of 40 bets right as minimum??
It doesn't matter when those 10 wins will occur, on the beginning, on the middle, on the end, all the same as long as the ratio is being confirmed at some point, any point.
So the real question is, how long before a 25% wins for Even Chances is being achieved?
Quote from: Blue_Angel on May 26, 2018, 02:50:57 PM
I've created a progression for EC bets which it succeeds as long as there are 25% wins out of the total of the bets placed.
This means that the expectation is being reduced to half of 50% (roughly).
The ratio of: 1 out of 4, 2 out of 8, 3 out of 12, 4 out of 16, 5 out of 20, 6 out of 24, 7 out of 28, 8 out of 32, 9 out of 36, 10 out of 40...etc
Can we get 10 out of 40 bets right as minimum??
It doesn't matter when those 10 wins will occur, on the beginning, on the middle, on the end, all the same as long as the ratio is being confirmed at some point, any point.
So the real question is, how long before a 25% wins for Even Chances is being achieved?
Funny. That depends on luck.
Quote from: Gizmotron on May 26, 2018, 02:53:38 PM
Funny. That depends on luck.
Luck, or randomness if you prefer, has limits.
For example you will never see a number missing more than 666 spins, we could extend it to the rest of the bet selections/probabilities:
666/2 numbers = 333 spins maximum absence
666/3 numbers = 222 spins maximum absence
666/4 numbers = 167 spins maximum absence
666/6 numbers = 111 spins maximum absence
666/12 numbers = 56 spins maximum absence
666/18 numbers (EC) = 37 spins maximum absence
If in some way you could surpass those virtual limits then you would be always victorious.
Hi BlueAngel;
RE: "Hey Garry, what's up?
Warming up the chair for me?
It would be a pity not to address your inquiry properly, but since you've posted that your selection is doing well for thousands of bets, then why don't you make the start by explaining about your selection criteria?
By doing so others would be encouraged to step forth and fulfill your request, what do you think?"
Please don't misunderstand my intentions here. I did not mean to imply that "my selection is doing well for thousands of bets."
My bet selection process is still in the development stage and I was inspired by this ongoing discussion to compliment the people involved in this thread in providing, what I consider, some very useful information.
As a direct result of the information I have personally learned in this thread, IN THEORY, it seems likely that by using only past performances as a basis of input, that it is indeed possible to achieve a level of play that would allow a person to make bet selections with enough accuracy to achieve profitability, OVER A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, which is all you need. I have to assume that is where the MM comes in, short-term, realistic goals, make your profit and leave.
I was suggesting that, THEORETICALLY, there must be a creative, perhaps new way of following or notating past results, specifically for Baccarat, that would lead us naturally to a positive bet selection process. I hope this clears things up.
Sincerely,
Garry
Quote from: Jimske on May 26, 2018, 02:40:48 PM
Well said. allow me to repeat. "The progression must be adjusted according the expectation and the expectation must adapt the tendencies."
Thank you!
Quote from: Blue_Angel on May 26, 2018, 03:01:20 PM
Luck, or randomness if you prefer, has limits.
For example you will never see a number missing more than 666 spins, we could extend it to the rest of the bet selections/probabilities:
666/2 numbers = 333 spins maximum absence
666/3 numbers = 222 spins maximum absence
666/4 numbers = 167 spins maximum absence
666/6 numbers = 111 spins maximum absence
666/12 numbers = 56 spins maximum absence
666/18 numbers (EC) = 37 spins maximum absence
If in some way you could surpass those virtual limits then you would be always victorious.
Blue,
Your virtual limits are utterly worthless! It's as useless as waiting for ten blacks to hit before betting on red. You can't use the statistics to try and side step the probability of winning. The payout will always be short of what the probability of winning says is fair. It doesn't matter how elaborate your progression is, it simply won't work in the long run.
I've never suggested to wait for the maturity of chances, why are you putting words in my mouth?
I see no point in waiting for something when there's always something else going on.
If you had to choose the best value for money which one would that be?
1. Stratosphere
2.Treasure Island
3. Venetian Palazzo
4.Bellagio
Quote from: Blue_Angel on May 26, 2018, 09:12:59 PM
I've never suggested to wait for the maturity of chances, why are you putting words in my mouth?
I see no point in waiting for something when there's always something else going on.
If you had to choose the best value for money which one would that be?
1. Stratosphere
2.Treasure Island
3. Venetian Palazzo
4.Bellagio
Value for what? Are you coming to town and you want to know where you should stay? Are you renting a car? Etc...
When are you coming?
All I'm asking is where do I get more for less money?
Best for me is a good balance between quality and cost.
Blue,
TI is good pretty good choice.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on May 26, 2018, 09:37:00 PM
All I'm asking is where do I get more for less money?
Best for me is a good balance between quality and cost.
Yeah if yer lookin for value then the Treasure Island is yer best bet, hey hey.
Best value?
I think where you can choose to wager at many tables getting huge comps at the same time, so providing you can place a minimum $1000 bet, Bellagio will be the best option.
Then Venetian.
TI or Stratosphere don't belong to the "huge value category", imo.
as.
Bellagio is ok, it's not great because it has so many immigrants that smoke like dragons. The smoke makes it unbearable at times. The Ven and Pallazo are nicer rooms in my opinion, you don't have the piss all over the bathroom floors, and the machines are cleaner.
Quote from: Xander on May 27, 2018, 12:17:05 AM
Bellagio is ok, it's not great because it has so many immigrants that smoke like dragons. The smoke makes it unbearable at times. The Ven and Pallazo are nicer rooms in my opinion, you don't have the piss all over the bathroom floors, and the machines are cleaner.
Actually you are right.
At Bellagio many players like to smoke not only cigarettes but also cigars, thinking that cigars will give them more respect (and it's a lol assumption as they are smoking plastic wrapped cigars that in Montecarlo and everywhere would be considered as real sh.it).
And yes, very often Bellagio high stakes toilet floor is filled by piss.
as.
Cosmopolitan is my favorite cuz they always got something goin on in that joint, hey hey.
I like Cosmo a lot too.
Blue stay at the Cosmo instead of TI.
Quote from: Xander on May 27, 2018, 03:01:21 AM
I like Cosmo a lot too.
Blue stay at the Cosmo instead of TI.
If you say so. :thumbsup: :beer:
Blue,
What's with the absurdly long signature story?
It's a quotes' plateau, all centuries wisdom conglomerated in one single signature!
Post something new so I can give you a hard time. ;D
And when the heck are you coming to Vegas?
Quote from: Xander on May 28, 2018, 12:29:54 AM
Post something new so I can give you a hard time. ;D
And when the heck are you coming to Vegas?
I'm posting when I've to say something and not just for the shake of it.
I'm not sure about LV right now, only the flight is 16+ hours and for a regular smoker like me is torment, let alone the controls inside the airport...last time they've almost cancelled my hotel reservation because they have delayed me on the arrivals!
Quote from: Blue_Angel on May 28, 2018, 01:21:05 AM
I'm posting when I've to say something and not just for the shake of it.
I'm not sure about LV right now, only the flight is 16+ hours and for a regular smoker like me is torment, let alone the controls inside the airport...last time they've almost cancelled my hotel reservation because they have delayed me on the arrivals!
Good lord man, quit smoking ASAP. It's a disgusting habit and it makes you smell really bad. To people that don't smoke, smokers smell like a combination of ash and cat urine. Try some nicotine patches and a steam cig. You'll live longer, be happier, have more money, and smell better.
Quote from: Xander on May 28, 2018, 01:32:39 AM
Good lord man, quit smoking ASAP. It's a disgusting habit and it makes you smell really bad. To people that don't smoke, smokers smell like a combination of ash and cat urine. Try some nicotine patches and a steam cig. You'll live longer, be happier, have more money, and smell better.
I've already 1 father, don't need a 2nd one...!
Don't make me ground you mister! ;D