+ Register

[Jimske]

I

[ADulay]

Friday is a casino day for me.  (Good clam chowder and fry bread, too!).

If you would like, I can post up my shoe (which will obviously be fabricated).  I can explain to anyone who will listen just how it was played and what the secret was/is.   Yes, I only play one shoe.

But then, that would be an exercise in futility for all involved.

None of the "herd" would believe it, no matter what the outcome.

AD

All (well, at least the three guys yelling the loudest),

  Here is your long awaited "POSTED SHOE".   What a thrill it is to post this up.  The anticipation, the planning, the stress, the juggling of multiple strategies and system plays to come up with the OBVIOUS solution for this particular shoe.

  So, I'll just skip all the happy casino junk and get to it.

  This is the shoe I walked up on.  Two people at the table already playing.  I'm in spot 1 (dealer's left for those who care).

  You need not be a rocket surgeon to look at the first 14 hands and see that this is a shoe crying out for Time Before Last wagering.   At least it was for me.   System 40 (chops) didn't look good and neither did any of the system plays requiring a lot of paperwork.  As I would have spent half of the remaining shoe just getting a score card "up to date".

  KEEP IT SIMPLE.

  Hand 15 starts the wagering with a simple 1,2,3 progression.  Why?  Because that's what I like.  Lose two of those and call it a day.

  Notice the single "two" at the start.   This is good.  We don't like twos running TB4L, right?

  Look at hands 30-33.  Here's our first chance to make the "3 wager.  It wins.  I continue with a single "test" wager.  It wins.  I continue on.

  If that wager at hand 33 loses, I'm done.  I take the +7 and call it a day.

  Uh, oh.  At hand 37 another "3" wager.  I don't like the way this is shaping up.  Too close but it wins and I continue on.  Once again, if it lost, I was done for the shoe/day.

  Damn.  Hand 45 and another "3" wager.  It hits for the third time, but I'm not liking having to make it.  I probably should have taken the +15 at hand 44 and blew the rest of it off but the logic of the moment said if it lost, I was still at +12 so go for it.

  Hand 49 should have been a stopper (+13) but I wanted to take a single flyer, one more time and it won so I stayed with it.  Obviously had that lost, I would have been done.

  Notice the final wager is a "2" and not a "3".  Never ever drop back under a +10 when you were so far ahead of it earlier.  If the 2 unit bet wins, I'll play on a bit more.  At it was, it lost so I was done.

  That's the play and the thought process.  No paperwork is involved.  The only thing you need be aware of is where you are with reference to your "goal" in the shoe.   I could have easily left that shoe much, much earlier but early on, it was running perfectly so why quit on a run?

  So, that's it.  Time Before Last was the big secret wagering plan.  Other system plays would work too, but this was the one I used this time.  Had that first "3" wager lost at hand 33 and I'm done.  I'll always take the safe win over a chance for a "big" win. 

   I don't know what else to add. 

[Dutchie]

Ad,thanks for posting that and giving your explanation as to the" why"of your betting selection.You caught a shoe bias.I have no problem believing you.Your betting progression 1-2-3(up as you lose I presume)so if you lost your first two bets you are breaking even on your third bet(3),so 12 unit stop -loss per shoe.Continue with your very good play.[smiley]aes/cool.png[/smiley]

[Whiskeypete]

Jim-good point. I understand my posts should stick to facts and refrain from immature personal attacks. I shall refrain from such actions in the future. Thank you.

[horus]

I wouldn't have minded playing the shoe posted up by ADulay....

PB
BP
PP
PP
BP
BP
PP
PP
BP
BP
BP

A nice streak of 10 Players on the second result of each pair to start of the shoe.

+6 is nothing to grumble about. [smiley]aes/money.png[/smiley]

[attachimg=1]

[soxfan]

I agree with that Preston Bailey cat. Yeasr ago Itested double zz against craps decision P-Dp using star as written and it did seem to be efficient at capturing the back to back win, hey hey.

[horus]

Very true, Horus.  Key to this shoe is continuity or conformity, if you will.  Anytime a shoe presents similar structure to our betting plan we will win.  Even if it lasts justs for a  bit.  Again - prediction is the key.

Jimske, The whole shoe was a good one for trending IMO. It reminds me of what PerryB always said....''control the losses and the wins will take care of themself'' I use a basic template like the one above and then only get funky if need be. One thing I have noticed which is a bit strange and I have seen other posters on different forums comment on it before as well is how the last portion of the shoe can often just completely go against everything previous. I have noticed that testing from several different sources. Obviously there is an easy answer....just don't play the last portion, lol. But it's strange none the less. I think the same applies to Roulette a bit. Too much data/information is not always a good thing. My success seems to come in short spells in both formats.

cheers

[gr8player]

One thing I have noticed which is a bit strange and I have seen other posters on different forums comment on it before as well is how the last portion of the shoe can often just completely go against everything previous. I have noticed that testing from several different sources. Obviously there is an easy answer....just don't play the last portion, lol. But it's strange none the less.....My success seems to come in short spells in both formats.

This is true.  It is inherent into the very nature of the game, just as in any EC game. 

It's what I like to refer to as the "unravel". 

And make no mistake of it, Horus, the very recognition of it is essential to the serious Bac player.  And to stay in step with the subject of this thread, it appears that Adulay is of similar mind, as he is consistently monitoring his "exit strategy" while he is playing his preferred trend, forever vigilant of its ominous "unravel" (good job, A).

Look, I realize that my bet selection process will do absolutely nothing to eradicate that daunted house edge.  I get it, and I've long ago comes to terms with it.

So I need a strategy, much like Adulay's, that'll see me get my money and then plan my exit.  Take advantage of my "10 minutes of good", maximize on those better portions of the shoe, and then back off, awaiting my next betting opportunity.  All planned and done in the name of minimizing the potentially-damaging...yet inevitable..."unravel".

Now we can begin conversation regarding the house edge.  Now, armed with solid entry and exit strategies, a consistent bet selection process, and, last but most certainly not least, a solid money-management plan (a shoe progression is considered as solid as they come, IMHO), and now the serious player can talk about overcoming that house edge; by utilization of their "collective" Player's Edges.

Stay well.

[Jimske]

I agree with that Preston Bailey cat. Yeasr ago Itested double zz against craps decision P-Dp using star as written and it did seem to be efficient at capturing the back to back win, hey hey.

That's "Stetson"  not "Preston" but yeah he states himself that double wins seem to be more prevalent with this placement.  It does seem that he may have something there but I haven't tested it thoroughly.

Jimske, The whole shoe was a good one for trending IMO. It reminds me of what PerryB always said....''control the losses and the wins will take care of themself'' I use a basic template like the one above and then only get funky if need be. One thing I have noticed which is a bit strange and I have seen other posters on different forums comment on it before as well is how the last portion of the shoe can often just completely go against everything previous. I have noticed that testing from several different sources. Obviously there is an easy answer....just don't play the last portion, lol. But it's strange none the less. I think the same applies to Roulette a bit. Too much data/information is not always a good thing. My success seems to come in short spells in both formats.

I think Roulette a different animal.  Nevertheless, I agree (Gr8 as well) that for some reason the second half of the shoe seems to "unravel" or change.  Perhaps it's due to the normal change of card distribution as some cards become unavailable OR maybe just selective memory.  After all the deck tends to change all the time.
*******************************
Maybe this will kick off a discussion of bet selection.  Here are the questions.  I've tried to raise them before but doesn't seem to go anywhere.  Maybe Andy shoe will kick it off.  1.  Is there a bet selection that wins more hands than loses?  2. Do different bet selection change the flow of W and L even though the total W/L rate remains the same?

Let's take a look at TBL vs. XXOO vs. OTBL vs. ZZ for simple starters.  Choose favorite templates if you want.  Does one or the other produce choppier W and L?  Does one or the other produce longer runs of W and L?

It's often been said that it is important to match one's betting scheme with one's bet placement.  If there is truly a differential between placements as mentioned above then this would be a key to winning wouldn't it?  There is a reason why some achieve a higher win rate than the EV.  I'm not going to do any hinting like asymbacc.  People will have different opinions.

Take a shoe like Andy's for instance.  He didn't lose more than 3 IAR.  Suppose we play ZZ against that shoe.  What do the W and L rates and runs look like?  How do they compare?  Assymbadc said "progressions, progressions, progressions."  We all know that progressions don't change expectation but . . .would different progressions perform better with different placements?  Can we use the W and L rates and composition to actually win more hands than lose?

Anybody interested?

J

[gr8player]

All good questions, Jimske.

And they're all questions that every serious player has tackled, some multiple times.

The bottom line, IMHO, Jimske, is that all bet placements will perform relatively similarly.  Same W/L patterns and/or streaks and/or strike rates; so if one is looking for the "magic formula" bet placement, one will find only frustration.

BUUUTTT, let's not "throw the baby out with the bath water", shall we?  Just because all bet placements, OVER THE LONG RUN, will perform the same, does not preclude one from using their preferred bet placement strategy to their own advantage.

Look, everyone here (me, you, Soxster, Horus, Adulay, even Johno...EVERYONE) has their preferred bet placement strategy.  Why?  Because that's their own personal comfort zone, where they are MOST FAMILIAR with their BP's actions, both good and bad.  And then, given that familiarity, they build their own personal entry and exit strategies (read: to either bet or "no-bet") and their own personal MM strategy; all built around their familiarity with their preferred BP's and preferred attacks (read: playing) on same.

That, in a nutshell, is how this game is to be beaten, especially long-term wise.  By learning to master their own personal play, those characteristics, those necessities, will serve to overcome the house edge in the long run.  Not any one of them alone....no, it will take it all; the BP, the MM, the "bet vs no-bet", the entry/exit strategies, the LONG TERM VISION....it'll take it all, collectively, to put you over the top in this game.

[Jimske]

All good questions, Jimske.

And they're all questions that every serious player has tackled, some multiple times.

The bottom line, IMHO, Jimske, is that all bet placements will perform relatively similarly.  Same W/L patterns and/or streaks and/or strike rates; so if one is looking for the "magic formula" bet placement, one will find only frustration.

BUUUTTT, let's not "throw the baby out with the bath water", shall we?  Just because all bet placements, OVER THE LONG RUN, will perform the same, does not preclude one from using their preferred bet placement strategy to their own advantage.

Look, everyone here (me, you, Soxster, Horus, Adulay, even Johno...EVERYONE) has their preferred bet placement strategy.  Why?  Because that's their own personal comfort zone, where they are MOST FAMILIAR with their BP's actions, both good and bad.  And then, given that familiarity, they build their own personal entry and exit strategies (read: to either bet or "no-bet") and their own personal MM strategy; all built around their familiarity with their preferred BP's and preferred attacks (read: playing) on same.

That, in a nutshell, is how this game is to be beaten, especially long-term wise.  By learning to master their own personal play, those characteristics, those necessities, will serve to overcome the house edge in the long run.  Not any one of them alone....no, it will take it all; the BP, the MM, the "bet vs no-bet", the entry/exit strategies, the LONG TERM VISION....it'll take it all, collectively, to put you over the top in this game.

The operative words in your post are "relatively similarly."  So by that you mean there may be differences, albeit, small differences.  Let's not forget that this is a game of small percentages and small differences can mean a great deal.

J

[AsymBacGuy]

Jim, you can safely assume that the WL sequences are very different depending what you are registering.

Some players, as gr8player, prefer to get some hint on the actual trend and side domination (well knowing what theorically happens most), others prefer to base their play just on relatively rare long term findings (me and many others), others prefer to utilize progressions giving to the bet selection a minor or zero impact.

IMO, there's no way to get any hint without observing/registering a decent amount of outcomes.

So, for example and imho and providing a simple BS, it's better to wait a WLLLW to bet than wagering on simple W or L or WL or LW or LL sequences.

The problem is to grasp the BS providing better reliable outcomes than others.

If the game would be a 50/50 game, any sequence (I can't use anymore the word disposition) will form identical results, so the number of a sequence like WWWLL will be equal to the identical counterpart of WWWLW.
That's not the case for many situations.

as.   






   















   

 




   

[Jimske]

Anyway, getting back to MY discussion.  Some people thing that a bet style should conform to the bet selection.  What do you think?  Are there discernible differences in bet selections?  Gr8 seems to equivocate; Asym seems to agree.
[/quote]

[gr8player]

Jimske, you are a good man, and a smart one as well....heck, I'd venture as far to say that you're an adept Baccarat player, as well.  So let's "cut to the chase" here, if you will:

You are spot-on in your BP evaluation index of effectively "reducing the LIAR".  That, my friend, is the name of the game.  For the "secret sauce", if you will, of this game lies in the player's ability to both familiarize and then workaround the all-so-inevitable losing streaks/losses of their preferred BP method.

So it then becomes the player's responsibility to do whatever it is in their power, whatever it is in their control, to LIMIT LOSSES.

Then, there's but one question left:

Which BP process might serve that solitary goal best?

As I stated at the outset of this post, Jimske, you're a smart man and an astute player; hence, the answer should be clear.  (Sidenote:  Fact is, I think you already know it.)

Stay well.

[Tomla]

FTL is too streaky, zigzag the same, my guess would be that TBL would be most compressed?