+ Register

[soxfan]

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.

[esoito]

Perhaps you can point out the personal attacks???

The wording very clearly stated close to. 

[Xander]

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.

[Albalaha]

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. 

---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.

[Gizmotron]

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.

[Albalaha]

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.

[Gizmotron]

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.

[alrelax]

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.

[Jimske]

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

[Gizmotron]

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.

[Xander]

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.

[Gizmotron]

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?

[Xander]

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.

[Mike]

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".

Null 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.

[Jimske]

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.