+ Register

[owenslv]

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.

[AsymBacGuy]

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. 
     








 

[Albalaha]

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.

[AsymBacGuy]

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.

[Albalaha]

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.

[alrelax]

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.?

[Xander]

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.

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.

[alrelax]

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.

[Xander]

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. 

[alrelax]

No arguments, I admit--you win, perfect!  Carry on.  Cheers!  Have a nice day. 

[Jimske]

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.

[Jimske]

LLL W LLLLL W LLLL W LLLL  Ouch!  Only won 4 out of first 49 hands!.

oooops!  4 of 19 not 49.

[Jimske]

LLL W LLLLL W LLLL W LLLL  Ouch!  Only won 4 out of first 49 hands!.

oooops!  4 of 19 not 49.

[Gizmotron]

...  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.

[Xander]

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.