QuoteYou've just refuted your own statement. If reality is inherently unknowable then how do you know THAT? There's a big difference between not knowing and saying that reality is INHERENTLY unknowable, which is a philosophical statement, and an incoherent one at that.
The fact is, like many other system players, you're confounded by randomness and so feel the need to make subjective decisions in the belief (and hope) that they will serve you better than "objective" decisions based on math and statistics. But there's no way to square this circle because you cannot make subjective decisions and expect them to give you better results than objective ones. Why? because in order to get an edge there must be some objective reality which gives you that edge. If "what works for me may not work for you" then OBVIOUSLY your wins are due to luck, not an edge.
But those who recommend this subjective approach always have to be vague about just what their "triggers" are. There was a guy who used to post here called XXVV who advocated using intuition as a way of picking his bets. He said intuition was using reason to the Nth degree, whatever that means. But when pressed to be specific about their actual bets and the triggers they use, the "subjective betting" advocates either avoid telling you, or if they do it's shown that they confer no edge whatsoever. I'm not saying that they are deliberately trying to deceive, and sometimes I'm sure they're sincere, it's just that because they haven't done proper testing (because they lack the required knowledge) they're deluding themselves.
And it's partly arrogance. Why do so many gamblers believe that the math doesn't apply to them? Why do they think they're so much smarter than anyone else and that the experts can be ignored? Maybe it's fear of something they don't understand, so they lash out at anything which looks like "theory".-Mike
Above is a well written post, by Mike (brilliant poster), that pretty much sums up reality. All the experience in the world of baccarat doesn't make a player a better guesser, or improve their edge if they're not already playing a mathematically perfect game designed to exploit certain inefficiencies within the game. The math doesn't lie, but players sometimes exaggerate, have very active imaginations, and at times just make sh^t up.
There are no symmetries/asymmetries patterns or flows that can be exploited if the math says that they don't exist. Anything that says otherwise is just word salad. Math and probability are not opinions, and they don't care about your experience or your feelings. In the long run...the game is never beaten, but the dealing procedures and side bets can be utilized to exploit inefficiencies...producing an edge for the skilled AP. (Sort play, edge player, side counts, hole carding, etc...)
For those people that believe that the secret to winning is in patterns, symmetry, and flow, one word comes to mind."
HUBRIS." ::)
I agree, that was a good post by Mike. This was my answer to it and to you here:
https://betselection.cc/alrelax's-blog/objective-or-subjective-reality-guesing-or-relying-on-mathametical-proof-etc/msg62925/#msg62925
Gizmo,
You've been posting these absurd ideas for over a decade. It's simple; in order to win consistently you need to overcome the house edge and you can't do it by guessing or "reading randomness", which is an oxymoron.
Learn basic probability, try to understand the logic of why you can't beat negative expectation games by using patterns, trends, or progressions. Break free of the fallacies and start a new life. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Mike on May 19, 2018, 08:47:47 AM
Gizmo,
You've been posting these absurd ideas for over a decade. It's simple; in order to win consistently you need to overcome the house edge and you can't do it by guessing or "reading randomness", which is an oxymoron.
Learn basic probability, try to understand the logic of why you can't beat negative expectation games by using patterns, trends, or progressions. Break free of the fallacies and start a new life. :thumbsup:
STOP the degrading and attempt at humiliation! IT IS UNWARRANTED and needless. Ref: "Break free of the fallacies and start a new life."
Quote from: Mike on May 19, 2018, 08:47:47 AM
Gizmo,
You've been posting these absurd ideas for over a decade. It's simple; in order to win consistently you need to overcome the house edge and you can't do it by guessing or "reading randomness", which is an oxymoron.
Learn basic probability, try to understand the logic of why you can't beat negative expectation games by using patterns, trends, or progressions. Break free of the fallacies and start a new life. :thumbsup:
This is everything in a nutshell. Visual Ballistics is a fallacy of imagined capability if applied to the modern Roulette wheel. See. I can cast dispersion on your intellect too. You, Mike, are blinded when seeing 15 to 20 of the same sector of a section of a wheel hit in a row. Now this trend in a row can be made up of table layout groupings too. And that is the proof. The location on the wheel does not prevent coincidences from occurring where sleeping dozens occur for instance. All the trends come from an almost fair RNG that the wheel is made up of. They occur if the wheel is defective too. Suffice it to say, you can't see trends that are invitations to exploit the casino. So you claim that an all seeing Math god makes the outcome symmetrical. Randomness is not symmetry. Neither is statistical analysis of variance. You might hate my logic and even me, but I don't really care because I feel sorry for you in every way that a person can feel sorry for a lost person. I see you as the same old lost person that you see me as. Any person that quits while they are ahead is in defiance of your basic axioms. And my method of swing trading a Roulette table is "quit while you are ahead."
QuoteGizmo -Oh, really. Perhaps you will listen this time? My "triggers" are when I see a swarm of the same characteristic occurring across many groupings, made up of multiple sets, and even though they discontinue in one set or group, that same characteristic forms in another, then I have a coincidence that has taken form. It's not a mathematical form, at least one that could not be explained by a chaos theoretician. It's there because I objectively positioned myself to notice it. It's not Chaos mambo jumbo either. Perhaps you have overlooked the global effect or the effectiveness states? Those are discloses that are not "this subjective approach." Who is "deluding themselves?"
Gizmo,
I'm sorry, but you've buried yourself in more gambler's fallacy nonsense.
Triggers are worthless and are often accompanied by up as you lose progressions. If the player were flat betting then the futility of triggers in the random game becomes obvious.
I've been winning well and regular for the past few years playin baccrats fulltime using a negative progression with the trigger. So, I guess I'm just on the rights ide of variance and haven't buck up against the "long run" yet right, hey hey
Quote from: soxfan on May 19, 2018, 07:47:54 PM
I've been winning well and regular for the past few years playin baccrats fulltime using a negative progression with the trigger. So, I guess I'm just on the rights ide of variance and haven't buck up against the "long run" yet right, hey hey
Soxfan,
That's great. I'm glad it's working for you. :thumbsup: However
if you feel that you have an edge, then you'd win vastly more if you were to utilize an up as you win progression. Again, that's only if you feel that the triggers have real value and are providing an edge.
Quote from: Xander on May 19, 2018, 05:21:35 PM
Gizmo,
I'm sorry, but you've buried yourself in more gambler's fallacy nonsense.
Triggers are worthless and are often accompanied by up as you lose progressions. If the player were flat betting then the futility of triggers in the random game becomes obvious.
I consider this some kind of Roulette bigotry. It is racist to categorize me as some kind of generalization that you project me to be representing. I don't use negative progressions. You need something from me in labeling me "more gambler's fallacy" too. I also don't see where you have made a coherent argument for any "futility of triggers." There are triggers and then there are triggers. You are some kind of neo-triggerNazi, much the same as the mathNazi's. I presume you do this, just to use your own kind of presumptions, just to embrace your own coolness. Please try to make a less group-think type of criticism, where you see yourself safe among your imaginary peers and elitists.
Quote from: Xander on May 19, 2018, 08:01:00 PM
Soxfan,
That's great. I'm glad it's working for you. :thumbsup: However if you feel that you have an edge, then you'd win vastly more if you were to utilize an up as you win progression. Again, that's only if you feel that the triggers have real value and are providing an edge.
You seem to be one of the mathite so perhaps you can tell me how many shoe or hand of baccarats constitute the "long run" that combined with no real edge will lead to my inevitable doom, hey hey?
Quote from: soxfan on May 19, 2018, 09:42:37 PM
You seem to be one of the mathite so perhaps you can tell me how many shoe or hand of baccarats constitute the "long run" that combined with no real edge will lead to my inevitable doom, hey hey?
By implying that I'm a "mathite" you're basically saying that you're not one, and that you likely suck at math. It's like an illiterate person calling someone that can read a "literite."
Regardless, you don't want to stand in a box labeled stupid just to try and be cool.
Besides, I know you're not one of those fools. ;)Any gambler that refers to gambling experts as "mathites" or "mathboyz" certainly isn't someone from which you ever want to take gambling advice.Rather than the long run, what you really want to know is how long do you need to play before you become a permanent loser. This is relatively easy to determine. Well over 99.99% of the time it's the point where even a five standard deviation win is no longer enough to overcome the house edge.
Quote from: Xander on May 20, 2018, 12:00:44 AM
By implying that I'm a "mathite" you're basically saying that you're not one, and that you likely suck at math. It would be like an illiterate person calling someone that can read a "literite."
Regardless, you don't want to stand in a box labeled stupid just to try and be cool. Besides, I know you're not one of those fools. ;)
Rather than the long run, what you really want to know is how long do you need to play before you become a permanent loser. This is relatively easy to determine. Well over 99.99% of the time it's the point where even a five standard deviation win is no longer enough to overcome the house edge.
Ok, so how many hand or shoe of baccarats would that entail, hey hey?
A gentle warning: one or two responses are close to personal attacks.
Confine comments to strategies, statements and beliefs only, and I will have no need to take action.
In other words, play the ball and not the player.
Make personal comments about a poster and you choose the consequencies.
Heed this warning...
Quote from: soxfan on May 20, 2018, 12:04:36 AM
Ok, so how many hand or shoe of baccarats would that entail, hey hey?
Depends on whether or not you're playing commission free bac, betting player or banker, etc... So right around 200k hands and you're toast.
Quote from: esoito on May 20, 2018, 12:13:53 AM
A gentle warning: one or two responses are close to personal attacks.
Confine comments to strategies, statements and beliefs only, and I will have no need to take action.
In other words, play the ball and not the player.
Make personal comments about a poster and you choose the consequencies.
Heed this warning...
Perhaps you can point out the personal attacks???
If you feel that there are some in this thread than I can certainly point out some real attacks in other threads. ;)
Quote from: Xander on May 20, 2018, 12:15:18 AM
Depends on whether or not you're playing commission free bac, betting player or banker, etc... So right around 200k hands and you're toast.
Well, I'm way over 200K real cake placed wager and I ain't close to being toast, hey hey.
Quote from: Xander on May 20, 2018, 12:16:04 AM
Perhaps you can point out the personal attacks???
The wording very clearly stated
close to.
Esoito,
A word of advice... Less is better in forums. Too much moderation turns people away. Your forum unfortunately is running very low on posters. Right now you pretty much just have one big blog written by Alrelax, and then a handful of other posters at best. Moderation closer to the wizardofvegas format would be a better fit, and would turn away fewer of the intelligent posters.
QuoteLearn basic probability, try to understand the logic of why you can't beat negative expectation games by using patterns, trends, or progressions. Break free of the fallacies and start a new life. :thumbsup:
---Mike
I agree to this statement to the extent of patterns and trends but refute the statement further regarding progressions. Actually, most of the people never worked upon a progression meant for the long run, so it is easy to negate all. Reality is, a sensible progression can help. House edge is not the sole culprit rather ignorance is.
If you think that a negative expectation or game of house edge is sufficient to beat players by its own, it is not.
For example, give me a session of roulette with 111 spins and a number placed anywhere three times(confirming house edge of 2.54% of European roulette), I will get a positive score, for sure, without going deep in losses. It might not hold true without a progression though. It is merely an example of how a progression can help handling negative expectations. In another way, the progression can handle temporary variance too and get a net win, thereafter.
Quote from: Albalaha on May 22, 2018, 05:33:11 AM
For example, give me a session of roulette with 111 spins and a number placed anywhere three times(confirming house edge of 2.54% of European roulette), I will get a positive score, for sure, without going deep in losses. It might not hold true without a progression though. It is merely an example of how a progression can help handling negative expectations. In another way, the progression can handle temporary variance too and get a net win, thereafter.
Interesting idea. So I started to work out a single hot number progression for a $5 table minimum inside bet. I got to 71 spins before continuing.
Example:
35 -- 5 won 175 lost 175
6 -- 6 won 210 lost 211
5 -- 7 won 245 lost 246
4 -- 8 won 280 lost 278
4 -- 9 won 315 lost 314
3 -- 10 won 350 lost 344
3 -- 11 won 385 lost 377
3 -- 12 won 420 lost 413
3 -- 13 won 455 lost 454
2 -- 14 won 490 lost 482
3 -- 15 won 525 lost 527
-------
71 spins
Now if you win anywhere before you reach a full number of spins for each step then you will win money worth doing it for.
Has anyone put together a good progression for a single hot number at a $5 table? I'd like to see it.
We can survive even the worst possible and win thereafter in average times. Making a workable progression like this needs out of box approaches and innovation. Ranting over existing failure ideas is not the way.
So yesterday I built a sim that allows me to take the above single hot number progression to test. It stops at the end of each step to allow me to select a new hottest number if I want to change to one. It has a chart to show what numbers are doing well as you go along. I broke down the first 35 spins to 12, 12, and 11 without changing the $5 value. So it acts just like you would act if you were playing at a real casino. After each win it reverts back to the starting point of $5.
It's interesting too. If I change numbers to what I think might be the hottest number, or most recent hottest number, I tend to win. If I just select a number randomly and stick with it, I usually get killed. Funny how it represents proof that you can read randomness and do better than if you just use blind statistics to prove ignorance. I guess it's unfortunate that such knowledge exists. Still, I prefer JP's "Up & Pull" MM tactics with just two net wins on even chance bets. Done by a randomness expert that JP method almost never losses. There are so many wins that the occasional losing session is just a small feature that can easily be lived with.
Gizmo, 100%, you know--I really do apologize for some of the mean things I pushed your way in the past!
The following you just wrote is spot on and exactly my frame-of-mind. Look at the piece I just wrote at maybe the same exact time you were writing this one??
************************************************************************************************************
It's interesting too. If I change numbers to what I think might be the hottest number, or most recent hottest number, I tend to win. If I just select a number randomly and stick with it, I usually get killed. Funny how it represents proof that you can read randomness and do better than if you just use blind statistics to prove ignorance. I guess it's unfortunate that such knowledge exists. Still, I prefer JP's "Up & Pull" MM tactics with just two net wins on even chance bets. Done by a randomness expert that JP method almost never losses. There are so many wins that the occasional losing session is just a small feature that can easily be lived with.
************************************************************************************************************
What I was referring to:
I do have a pretty stead fast rule these days that has been working extremely well--that is to risk my buy-in with 100% attempt and diligence to compile a win to have my 1/3rd M.M.S. kick in and take over the governance of my play, time and wagering, etc. If I lose it--that is it 99.0 % of the time. The handful of times I have continued to buy-in only 100% of the time reinforced the losing or cot 'take off' and win, each and every time! The last one being a $15,000.00 mistake on a certain Friday night! The past few months, right since the Christmas holidays, I lost outright 7 times. I pushed 6 times or within a $100.00 each way, evens out for gas, snacks, etc. I won 14 times, meaning a considerable amount of money, not one or two or three units of $75.00 or $150.00, etc. Something of a win to me is at least double at the very very minimum, that of my buy-in. The majority of the times my wins would amount to greater than triplicating that of my buy-in. That is in the past, not quite 5 months since the New Year.
************************************************************************************************************
The above was from the piece I wrote in my thread as follows:
https://betselection.cc/baccarat-forum/risk-everyday-bankrollbuy-in/msg63076/#msg63076
Reply #1. Thanks.
Quote from: Gizmotron on May 23, 2018, 12:19:21 PM
So yesterday I built a sim that allows me to take the above single hot number progression to test. It stops at the end of each step to allow me to select a new hottest number if I want to change to one. It has a chart to show what numbers are doing well as you go along. I broke down the first 35 spins to 12, 12, and 11 without changing the $5 value. So it acts just like you would act if you were playing at a real casino. After each win it reverts back to the starting point of $5.
It's interesting too. If I change numbers to what I think might be the hottest number, or most recent hottest number, I tend to win. If I just select a number randomly and stick with it, I usually get killed. Funny how it represents proof that you can read randomness and do better than if you just use blind statistics to prove ignorance. I guess it's unfortunate that such knowledge exists. Still, I prefer JP's "Up & Pull" MM tactics with just two net wins on even chance bets. Done by a randomness expert that JP method almost never losses. There are so many wins that the occasional losing session is just a small feature that can easily be lived with.
Yeah, pretty interesting that "hot" numbers do better than simply mindless guessing. One would think that & wins would come out to the EV but they don't. I do much worse when experimenting with wagers without structure. I don't do it but have actually practiced it live. NG!!
OTH, using a structured bet placement based on bias I have found win % consistently higher. I'm talking Baccarat of course. Last year, prior to my 10 month away I was tabulating all wagers and have continued since I've been back. To date 2,538 wagers with 53.94% strike rate. Again, all live wagers.
So I was curious if you have come up with a strike rate for your method and, if so, how it compares.
J
Quote from: Jimske on May 24, 2018, 08:33:34 PM
So I was curious if you have come up with a strike rate for your method and, if so, how it compares.
I will try to bring up context and how I have changed in the past 6 months. It really goes to structure in my bet selections and how I use my strike rate. I hope it answers your question. I found out that I wanted too many wins in my gambling sessions. That I needed to hit the big win streaks to make the trip worth it. That almost always led to a mentality that I did not mind descending into my bankroll deeply before hitting my goal. That ended up getting the best of me for years.
So I knew something had to change. First I decided to figure out how much was enough to make a trip to the casino worth it. Turns out that $300 per day is just right. After that I figured out that 3 net wins was good enough to achieve that with. So I set out to find the best way to get 3 net wins. I have decades of playing experience with double dozen and even chance bets. For years I would play the Even Chance bets waiting for the monster win streak. You can see that in all my writings over the years. I'm just saying that this way of thinking was wrong for me. It might or might not be wrong for others. They will have to decide.
Nathan Detroit mentioned John Patrick's "up and pull" method a few days ago. I discovered a very low risk method of reaching 3 net wins in just 2 steps. So that is what I'm doing now. It's not fashionable but it fits my lifestyle.
So with that in mind I would like to point out that even though the general trend might slowly grind its way downward at or near the rate of the house's advantage there are micro upticks along the way, much the same as candlesticks in a day trading stock chart. These little upswings can be seen in my playing charts as characteristics of randomness. 6 reds in a row. A swarm of singles. A dominance of high 18 numbers. All these things happen from time to time in a session of play. I target, or structure, if I understand what you mean by structure, my bet choices looking for a way to get to just 1 net win up. Once I have that, I let the house's money ride for one bet, just to see if I have bet correctly and reached my third net win. So it's a tiny little war to get first net bets, or one net bet up at some point. I may have to do that three times, or I might not.
Gizmo,
Winning is not a mindset. The game doesn't care about your discipline. It doesn't care about how many games you're trying to win or what your money management is. What matters is whether or not you have the edge. If you don't have the edge, then your expectation moving forward is simply the sum of all of your bets multiplied times the house edge. Along the way to the long run you'll of course contend with variance (luck) bobbing up and down, but it's a zero sum game that's merely a short term distraction.
If you really want to win, find a way to get the edge. Everything else, like the money management part/gaming discipline is just noise. Everything that needs to be said about the MM can be stated in just one paragraph.
Quote from: Xander on May 25, 2018, 01:35:51 AM
Gizmo,
Winning is not a mindset. The game doesn't care about your discipline. It doesn't care about how many games you're trying to win or what your money management is. What matters is whether or not you have the edge. If you don't have the edge, then your expectation moving forward is simply the sum of all of your bets multiplied times the house edge. Along the way to the long run you'll of course contend with variance bobbing up and down, but it's a zero sum game that's merely a short term distraction.
Xander, I get it. You are selling having an edge while dismissing anything else that you can be categorized as not having an edge. Ten reds in a row are not a "zero sum game." Perhaps we should move on to word games like zero some manipulations. I'm fascinated by your anal retentive perpetuation of this world of having an edge. It's like confirmation bias meets the Grand Inquisitor. You are officially labeled the "edgeNatzi." It's great to belong to a club, don't you think?
There is no chance in ell that you are concerned that I will be disappointed without your caring warnings. So, why are you here? We are all dummy dicks on a puss farm full of cats. Are you the gambling savior? I just don't get it?
Quote from: Gizmotron on May 25, 2018, 01:53:44 AM
Xander, I get it. You are selling having an edge while dismissing anything else that you can be categorized as not having an edge. Ten reds in a row are not a "zero sum game." Perhaps we should move on to word games like zero some manipulations. I'm fascinated by your anal retentive perpetuation of this world of having an edge. It's like confirmation bias meets the Grand Inquisitor. You are officially labeled the "edgeNatzi." It's great to belong to a club, don't you think?
There is no chance in ell that you are concerned that I will be disappointed without your caring warnings. So, why are you here? We are all dummy dicks on a puss farm full of cats. Are you the gambling savior? I just don't get it?
I have nothing to sell anyone.
Ten reds in a row is meaningless. It's no more relevant than a bear pattern in the clouds. I don't know why you're enamored with it.
Quote from: Jimske on May 24, 2018, 08:33:34 PM
OTH, using a structured bet placement based on bias I have found win % consistently higher. I'm talking Baccarat of course. Last year, prior to my 10 month away I was tabulating all wagers and have continued since I've been back. To date 2,538 wagers with 53.94% strike rate. Again, all live wagers.
Jimske,
Are you betting a roughly equal mix of banker/player? I'm not sure what the exact long term win rate should be, but assuming you're not betting ties, it should be pretty close to 50%. Assuming this, your results are impressive and at the far end of the bell curve. A p-value of less than 1% is deemed "significant".
QuoteNull hypothesis: population proportion = 0.5
Sample size: n = 2538
Sample proportion = 0.5394
Test statistic: z = (0.5394 - 0.5)/0.00992486 = 3.96983
Two-tailed p-value = 7.192e-05
(one-tailed = 3.596e-05)
It could still be a fluke though, because the number of hands played is relatively small.
Quote from: Mike on May 25, 2018, 07:31:40 AM
Jimske,
It could still be a fluke though, because the number of hands played is relatively small.
Of course. I always expect to return to the law of large numbers.
Quote from: Xander on May 25, 2018, 01:55:42 AM
Ten reds in a row is meaningless. It's no more relevant than a bear pattern in the clouds. I don't know why you're enamored with it.
Money! I want free money. I want money that comes from my acquired skill where there are people like yourself that say it is impossible, like without an edge. Money earned in this way is far better than being paid as some functionary. And it's bragging money too. It can be earned in 5 minutes or more likely under 2 hours. It's not a comp gathering game either.
I'm so fascinated by the world you see around you. You have an edge. You claim that there can't be any kind of edge in guessing. You won't even acknowledge that there is such a thing as a streak of reds. That it's some kind of meaningless cloud formation that needs to be ignored. How can you be an expert at using it if you can't see an edge in it?
Try this logic. I proposed it at least a decade ago to the mathBoyz: If you see a meaningless pattern occurring, can you use it as if it means something, even though we all know that it is meaningless? Can anyone pretend that it has a beginning, a middle, and an ending? If it has no meaning, can it be used to give you a meaningless temporary edge?
Now, I'm still waiting for the mathBoyz to respond. They all chickened out. Perhaps you will not. I know what to do with 22 black numbers in a row. You apparently don't. We all know that the color of a slot on a Roulette wheel is symbolic only. We also know that the table layout is not a real representation of locations on the wheel. But the only thing that matters is that the casino will not just take money laid on the table. They will also give money even if you have a meaningless experience. I like that too. You have raised my conscientiousness a degree. It makes making money off a casino even more rewarding that it is meaningless and without an edge. Yep, I really like that.
Mike: "Are you betting a roughly equal mix of banker/player?" I don't keep track of that but my guess is yes.
Quote from: Jimske on May 25, 2018, 12:11:18 PM
Of course. I always expect to return to the law of large numbers.
What is it that you expect the law of large numbers to do for you?
Quote from: Xander on May 25, 2018, 02:27:07 PM
What is it that you expect the law of large numbers to do for you?
Expecting the effect of "law of large numbers" is just an
expectation, if it wasn't then variance wouldn't be unpredictable.
If we really knew that as a fact and not as an expectation then we could create a
long term money management which would generate profit as the results will get closer to the mean
expectation.
So by using more results rather than a few would we
guaranteed that the results would always conform to the
theoretical mean?!
What forces and obligates variance to act so?! NOTHING!
Quote from: Blue_Angel on May 25, 2018, 05:21:29 PM
Expecting the effect of "law of large numbers" is just an expectation, if it wasn't then variance wouldn't be unpredictable.
If we really knew that as a fact and not as an expectation then we could create a long term money management which would generate profit as the results will get closer to the mean expectation.
So by using more results rather than a few would we guaranteed that the results would always conform to the theoretical mean?!
What forces and obligates variance to act so?! NOTHING!
LOL. Thanks. Now I don't have to bother with this question.
A shrewd old cat told me that the only pure mechanical style that would win well and regular over the long run is the anti-streaks style. I tested his style bucking up against 1175 live baccarats shoe on the party poker live casino and managed to capture just over two units per shoe profits so maybe he is right, hey hey.
The math doesn't lie, but gambler's sometimes do. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Xander on May 26, 2018, 10:31:47 PM
The math doesn't lie, but gambler's sometimes do. :thumbsup:
So, yer sayin that 1175 shoe constitutes the "long run", hey hey????
Quote from: soxfan on May 26, 2018, 10:19:50 PM
A shrewd old cat told me that the only pure mechanical style that would win well and regular over the long run is the anti-streaks style. I tested his style bucking up against 1175 live baccarats shoe on the party poker live casino and managed to capture just over two units per shoe profits so maybe he is right, hey hey.
He is absolutely right thanks to long term baccarat findings:
1- differently to roulette outcomes, itlr baccarat results will produce a far less amount of long streaks than singles or doubles or triples.
2- it's a proven fact that any bac hand will feature a slight propensity to get the opposite hand just occurred (M. Shackleford and some others)
Now, only a fool would think that applying this strategy every shoe will provide profitable situations no matter what.
S.hit happens rarely or in clusters.
as.
Quote from: soxfan on May 26, 2018, 10:37:56 PM
So, yer sayin that 1175 shoe constitutes the "long run", hey hey????
No that's not the long run, but it's more statistically relevant than just a hundred!
Quote from: Xander on May 27, 2018, 12:18:11 AM
No that's not the long run, but it's more statistically relevant than just a hundred!
Well, 1100 shoe is equal to about a year worth of fulltime play for me so I would say that is fairly significant. And, while testing this style on two occasion I got clipped for drawdown of around 530 unit so ya gotta have the balls and bankroll to see it through. That's why most cats lose cuz they lacking either of those attribute, hey hey.
Quote from: soxfan on May 26, 2018, 10:19:50 PM
A shrewd old cat told me that the only pure mechanical style that would win well and regular over the long run is the anti-streaks style. I tested his style bucking up against 1175 live baccarats shoe on the party poker live casino and managed to capture just over two units per shoe profits so maybe he is right, hey hey.
By anti-streak you mean that you begin by betting opposite of the last, if it loses you stop and wait for another 2 streak to bet against going to 3 in a row, if you lose you stop and wait for another 3 streak to bet against going to 4 in a row, if you lose you stop and wait for another 4 streak to bet against going to 5 in a row, if you lose you stop and wait for another 5 streak to bet against going to 6 in a row, if you lose you stop and wait for another 6 streak to bet against going to 7 in a row, if you lose you stop and wait for another 7 streak to bet against going to 8 in a row, if you lose you stop and wait for another 8 streak to bet against going to 9 in a row, if you lose you stop and wait for another 9 streak to bet against going to 10 in a row, if you lose your bankroll is being busted effectively!
If you don't Martingale then you could stay to the level of streak which you won last time till you get ahead (new BR high).
Is this what you call anti-streak??
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on May 26, 2018, 11:34:41 PM
He is absolutely right thanks to long term baccarat findings:
1- differently to roulette outcomes, itlr baccarat results will produce a far less amount of long streaks than singles or doubles or triples.
2- it's a proven fact that any bac hand will feature a slight propensity to get the opposite hand just occurred (M. Shackleford and some others)
Now, only a fool would think that applying this strategy every shoe will provide profitable situations no matter what.
S.hit happens rarely or in clusters.
as.
ASYM, strong or weak, Streakinv or Antistreak, whatever you want to call it, either way is a strategy either way is playing to match what the presentments are, it doesn't matter it just depends on your vision, frame of mind, that's what I've been trying to express in my numerous detailed threads. Some people call it streaks and some people call it anti streaks, it's a description but either way is very viable and either way is very winnable as well it's very losable.
But do one thing all the time and nothing is more guaranteed to lose than just that.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on May 27, 2018, 07:23:00 PM
By anti-streak you mean that you begin by betting opposite of the last, if it loses you stop and wait for another 2 streak to bet against going to 3 in a row, if you lose you stop and wait for another 3 streak to bet against going to 4 in a row, if you lose you stop and wait for another 4 streak to bet against going to 5 in a row, if you lose you stop and wait for another 5 streak to bet against going to 6 in a row, if you lose you stop and wait for another 6 streak to bet against going to 7 in a row, if you lose you stop and wait for another 7 streak to bet against going to 8 in a row, if you lose you stop and wait for another 8 streak to bet against going to 9 in a row, if you lose you stop and wait for another 9 streak to bet against going to 10 in a row, if you lose your bankroll is being busted effectively!
If you don't Martingale then you could stay to the level of streak which you won last time till you get ahead (new BR high).
Is this what you call anti-streak??
The oldtimer asked me not to reveal his style specific sufficient to sat hey makes cake on 1s 2s 3s 4s streak and gets clipped on streak of 5+. He also has a way to "qualify" a shoe by identifying a certain "event" in first half of shoe and if it pops then he comes over the top betting large units in second half of the shoe, hey hey.
Quote from: soxfan on May 28, 2018, 12:50:21 AM
The oldtimer asked me not to reveal his style specific sufficient to sat hey makes cake on 1s 2s 3s 4s streak and gets clipped on streak of 5+. He also has a way to "qualify" a shoe by identifying a certain "event" in first half of shoe and if it pops then he comes over the top betting large units in second half of the shoe, hey hey.
"For a certain event..."
For example first 30 or so hands had a 5+ streak so he doesn't bet the anti-streak but instead let it ride for 5 times in a row in the 2nd half.
If 5 streak didn't occur during first half then goes for the anti-streak beats.
Right?
Quote from: alrelax on May 27, 2018, 11:52:29 PM
ASYM, strong or weak, Streakinv or Antistreak, whatever you want to call it, either way is a strategy either way is playing to match what the presentments are, it doesn't matter it just depends on your vision, frame of mind, that's what I've been trying to express in my numerous detailed threads. Some people call it streaks and some people call it anti streaks, it's a description but either way is very viable and either way is very winnable as well it's very losable.
But do one thing all the time and nothing is more guaranteed to lose than just that.
Naturally you are right, and that's why is so important to select at most our betting opportunities.
We could be right or wrong at the same level as betting every hand, yet with our very selected plan we are paying an inferior tax and trying to get advantage of RTM or statistical long term findings.
It's quite more likely to get a RRRRRBBBBB at roulette than a BBBBBPPPPP sequence at baccarat.
Imo such baccarat sequence is just one possible sequence over 1024 possibilities for 10 consecutive decisions. At roulette itlr the average probability to get AAAAABBBBB will be very close to 1:1024, at baccarat it isn't.
as.
Favorable opportunities, the key in all business and gambling endeavors, IMO and I believe that of all expereinced players, no matter if they admit it or not. If not, why risk the capital??
Variance acts in short term seem rare--might be--yes, but they will be there in one form--fashion--or another. They have to. It is just not the prespective of most gamblers I believe. Sure, a 45 hand or so first half of a shoe without ties and F-7's and P-8's seems great, will 4 or 5 F-7's and 4 P-8's and 10 ties come within the next 20 hands?? We all know how most shoes finish. The problem is being within those shoes and comparing all losses and wins to previous events and experiences and then you convince yourself, it is just not going to happen. Then when you do stop attempting---then they come out. Then it is too late and you are ultra frustrated and emotionally off balance.
Once you are 'off-balance' it is not easy to play the right way with clear vision and complete neutrality.
And also, resetting and refreshing has a lot more to do than just charting, when I say resetting and refreshing, it is meant to mean an entire neutral and clear vision, nothing to do with charting and starting over, etc., or anythign along those lines. Clearly a huge game changer as I proved, but misunderstood by most all. Re-charting has no control or balance in your play except for controlling a possible loss.
And also those that really think M.M.S. are flat betting with a pull here and there, etc., are not really into M.M.S. at all. I say risk the buy-in and get some win. Then your M.M.S. has to govern your play and if you can win, your M.M.S. will allow you to continue and when you lose it will run you out of money after (and only after) you already got your buy-in back and a win. There is a huge difference about what someone is saying here with a simple MMS. When I properly employ my MMS I am able to have the power and the funds to risk, but the best part of it is that I already recouped my buy-in and have a 2 or 3 time buy-in capital risk profit. I guess I just go for the bigger and the clusters rather than the few units here and there. Why? because of the fact of being 'grinded down'. Once I found the proper buy-in risk amount and had a mind set that, that was pure risk with no stop loss or win stop and then employed the MMS, it was like day and night.
The whole key to it is the multiples of what I win, when I win and the ability to continually reset and refresh without preference or consious, etc.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on May 28, 2018, 01:13:56 AM
"For a certain event..."
For example first 30 or so hands had a 5+ streak so he doesn't bet the anti-streak but instead let it ride for 5 times in a row in the 2nd half.
If 5 streak didn't occur during first half then goes for the anti-streak beats.
Right?
Actually, more the opposite of what you outline, hey hey.