+ Register

[Xander]

You'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." 

[Gizmotron]

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

[Mike]

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. 

[alrelax]

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. 

STOP the degrading and attempt at humiliation! IT IS  UNWARRANTED and needless.  Ref:  "Break free of the fallacies and start a new life."

[Gizmotron]

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. 

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."

[Xander]

Gizmo -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.

[soxfan]

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

[Xander]

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.     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. 

[Gizmotron]

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.

[soxfan]

Soxfan,

That's great.  I'm glad it's working for you.     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?

[Xander]

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.

[soxfan]

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?

[esoito]

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...

[Xander]

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.

[Xander]

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.