BetSelection.cc
Highlighted => AsymBacGuy => Topic started by: AsymBacGuy on May 11, 2016, 11:19:31 pm

We know that any progression will get the best of it whenever a zero equilibrium point will be reached within a fair amount of trials. Of course some progressions could do even better, that is getting the player a profit even when the W/L ratio is shifted toward the right.
Notice that the well known D'Alambert progression will win 1 unit after the equilibrium is reached but not everytime as everything depends about the DISTRIBUTION of W and L.
Here I'm talking about the almost absolute impossibility to lose our entire bankroll and this is a total different thing than stating that we will win easily. Nonetheless knowing that we won't lose in the longest possible runs isn't a vulgar accomplishment.
I have to forcely consider a $100 standard unit bet and the total bankroll is $6600 (66 units).
For simplicity we won't take into account the commission when applied.
Remember that our goal is to reach at a given point a zero equilibrium point, meaning we want to get the W/L ratio = zero.
Later more on that.
Columns are: L deviations, betting amount in $, financial exposure, gain after the equilibrium will be reached
0 $100 100 
1 $100 + $10 210 10
2 $100 + $20 330 30
3 $100 + $30 460 60
4 $100 + $40 600 100
5 $100 + $50 750 150
6 $100 + $60 910 210
7 $100 + $70 1080 280
8 $100 + $80 1260 360
9 $100 + $90 1450 450
10 $100 + $100 1650 550
11 $200 + $10 1860 660
12 $200 + $20 2080 780
13 $200 + $30 2300 780
14 $200 + $30 2430 910
15 $200 + $30 2760 910
16 $200 + $30 2990 910
17 $200 + $40 3130 1050
18 $200 + $40 3370 1050
19 $200 + $40 3610 1050
20 $200 + $40 3850 1050
21 $200 + $50 4100 1200
22 $200 + $50 4350 1200
23 $200 + $50 4600 1200
24 $200 + $50 4850 1200
25 $200 + $50 5100 1200
26 $200 + $60 5360 1360
27 $200 + $60 5620 1360
28 $200 + $60 5880 1360
29 $200 + $60 6140 1360
30 $200 + $60 6400 1360
31 $200 + $60 6600 1360
We see that to lose our entire bankroll we need either a 5.56 sr negative deviation (like looking at 31 negative hands in a row, a 31 streak) or, most likely, a W/L gap of 31.
Every roulette player knows that a gap between even chances could easily reach and surpass the W/L amount (btw a 31 streak is a very very very rare finding also at this game) but at baccarat we have a lot of ploys to find two opposite events that cannot reach the 31 negative (or less likely positive)value by any fkn means.
Especially if we want to prolong the progression by another 10 or so steps.
So we know that adopting this slow progression we can't lose or, better sayed, that the probability to lose is really very very low, let's say almost impossible.
And, wonder of wonders, with proper adjustments we may use it betting only the Player side, hence knowing that we won't pay a bit of commission.
In a word, we can even regularly bet the unfavourable side knowing that we can't lose itlr.
A further example why we have to play slowly and with a lot of patience.
as.

are you saying bet 1 unit 10x then 2 units 20x?

There is an Armenian cat on a member only dice forum that has come up with a progression style that is, imho, nearly unbreakable. That's cuz it covers the mathematical expectation of a certain event popping within so many toss of the cubes. So, if the action at the dices table always play out according to expectation then he would never bust a progression. But there are practical reasons it's hard to play in that you need a minimum 10 thousands unit bankroll, and they stones to make the max bet of slightly more than 800 unit. And ya gotta have access to a joint that gives you a nice fat spread between minmx bets, hey hey.

The gain after the equilibrium will be reached looks incorrect. If you bet $110 the 2nd bet and your total value it risk from the start with that bet is $210 and you win then you are at $100 P&L ($100 1st Bet + $110 2nd Bet = $100).

are you saying bet 1 unit 10x then 2 units 20x?
Nope. You have to start the progression whenever you get some losses and the first column (# of losses) dictates how mush to bet.
You keep staying at the same level if you win up to the point where you get the zero equilibrium point, in that case you get a profit.
If you lose, you keep track of the losses (again column #1) and act accordingly.
Of course a perfect progression/regression should start at a higher standard bet working counterwise, let's say $200. Whenever you win you go down the same you would do with the L progression.
When we win the house owns something from us as well as we expect something from it after some losses.
as.

There is an Armenian cat on a member only dice forum that has come up with a progression style that is, imho, nearly unbreakable. That's cuz it covers the mathematical expectation of a certain event popping within so many toss of the cubes. So, if the action at the dices table always play out according to expectation then he would never bust a progression. But there are practical reasons it's hard to play in that you need a minimum 10 thousands unit bankroll, and they stones to make the max bet of slightly more than 800 unit. And ya gotta have access to a joint that gives you a nice fat spread between minmx bets, hey hey.
Yep, limiting the bankroll should be of paramount importance at the cost to play a very slow game.
as.

The gain after the equilibrium will be reached looks incorrect. If you bet $110 the 2nd bet and your total value it risk from the start with that bet is $210 and you win then you are at $100 P&L ($100 1st Bet + $110 2nd Bet = $100).
??
210 is the loss amount if you lose both 1st and 2nd hand.
If you are at a 210 level, you need to win two hands at level #3 ($200 + $30) getting a gross profit of $30.
No way the progression can be wrong, it was carefully studied more than one century ago.
But unfortunately it was devised for roulette where it cannot work by obvious reasons.
as.

Ok I now understand you are going for two consecutive wins after the losses. Then I don't understand the last column 'gain after the equilibrium will be reached'. you are just trying to find two wins after a possibly huge series of losses?

As many times mentioned, a progression must hold up to the most likely variance features any game will provide. And talking about 50/50 games, variance cannot act other than on W/L or on/off outcomes.
It's reasonable to put the variance limit into a deviation range of 25 and +25 (5 sr).
Here we got an even higher amount, a 5.56 level.
Never forgetting that the winning or losing sequences must be always put in relationship with the ideal zero point.
Hence a 18 overall losing sequence following a +12 situation isn't a sort of statistics disaster: here we're just 6 step far from the zero point.
In this example, starting the L progression at the zero point would be a far better idea than starting it at the +12 level (6 losses vs 18 losses).
That's why we have to adjust the progression even on the W side, this time lowering the bets.
as.

Ok I now understand you are going for two consecutive wins after the losses. Then I don't understand the last column 'gain after the equilibrium will be reached'. you are just trying to find two wins after a possibly huge series of losses?
Nope, but I understand as I haven't clarified well the topic.
The first column is the most important. It tells us how many losses we got.
That is HOW MANY BETS I'M BEHIND TO GET THE EQUILIBRIUM (W=L)
If I'm losing 7 bets (consecutively or not, what it counts is the overall total) I'll have to stay at this level for 7 bets as I'll get the equilibrium after those 7 bets. Giving me a profit of $280.
In a word, we have to take into account the L number and bet what that level dictates up to the equilibrium point.
If we're at level #7 and we win the first hand we keep playing this level up to the equilibrium. If after a win at a given level we lose, we don't go to #8 level as the number of losses hasn't change (always 7). Only if we'll have a first loss at a given level we'll go to #8 and so on.
Obviously final levels can get a profit even though we won't reach the equilibrium point.
But under normal circumstances, it would be a mistake to stop the searching of the eq. point as we want to get a profit PROPORTIONALLY placed to the risk involved.
as.

Now I understand. This is somewhat how I win back. If I am building a net loss on mini and midi, I have frequently gone into rally mode and decisively won back on midi. I have never gotten that deep, and my best sessions never really went too rough at any point.
If you are having difficulty it is because it is most likely a bad combination of you and difficult progressions. All it takes is some progressions that are straight forward and clear to you and you can roll.

Asym,
You started with a wrong direction. There is no equilibrium in a game of house edge as every bet is subjected to that and in long run, all bets will go far from equilibrium in terms of "extra losses". Variance can take them even more far. Even in a game without any house edge, a bet might not get equilibrium even after a billion trials.
D'alembert is a classic comedy of errors and based on ideas that do not work in real life. It has no mathematical basis to make it a winner.

Asym,
You started with a wrong direction. There is no equilibrium in a game of house edge as every bet is subjected to that and in long run, all bets will go far from equilibrium in terms of "extra losses". Variance can take them even more far. Even in a game without any house edge, a bet might not get equilibrium even after a billion trials.
D'alembert is a classic comedy of errors and based on ideas that do not work in real life. It has no mathematical basis to make it a winner.
This reality only exists in the chambers of The Dark Wizard. Please exercise extreme caution or he may summon his Black Riders to come and get you!

31 B or P in a row is "almost" impossible,but a gap W/L of 31 is frequent.
Mathematically, in 992 hands (31.31 + 31) a gap W/L of 31 has more than 50% probability to occur ,without never reaching the equilibrium W/L in the meantime.

Here I'm talking about the almost absolute impossibility to lose our entire bankroll and this is a total different thing than stating that we will win easily. Nonetheless knowing that we won't lose in the longest possible runs isn't a vulgar accomplishment.
Remember that our goal is to reach at a given point a zero equilibrium point, meaning we want to get the W/L ratio = zero.
......
So we know that adopting this slow progression we can't lose or, better sayed, that the probability to lose is really very very low, let's say almost impossible. ......
And, wonder of wonders, with proper adjustments we may use it betting only the Player side, hence knowing that we won't pay a bit of commission. ......
If W=L, the ratio is 1.
Izak Matatya on the Zumma tester:
"There are 20,825 Banker decisions versus 20182 Player decisions overall, meaning there are 643 more Banker decisions than Player decisions. Multiple random sampling over 600 shoes also shows results ranging from 300 to 1200 more Banker decisions than Player decisions."
Using this progression, a bettor would lose their bankroll ten or more times over, betting Player only on the Zumma shoes.
Betting Banker only,would not be a solution.
Using this progression, a bettor would lose their bankroll within the first 36 shoes of the Zumma Tester.

As,
You and I are about on the same track in lots of ways, but.......as far as something that can't lose in gamblingcasino gambling....I would rather say, 'might not lose'.
We are all in control of our own destiny, meaningwe lead ourselves there, wherever that may be.
Personally, I play to win and I play hard. From mild aggressive to very aggressive. I have extremely cut down in longer trips to Vegas and as well, the local places I cut down to a shoe or two or a few parts of a few shoes.
Your progressions would fail with me. I would not stray from 1326, 1324 or even 1248 depending on what I was doing/feeling. You have way too many wins or other plateaus that would take self sustaining to keep going.

I understand your skepticism but look, if we can't win hoping for equilibrium or a kind of it, how can we think to win hoping for positive deviations always shifted on our side?
Yes, ideally we can if we are able to spot more likely events restricted in their variance.
So, B/P results on Zumma books cannot teach us nothing because B is more likely than P but the variance is astronomical.
Naturally the word equilibrium must be intended in a wide sense.
This progression might not lose as Alrelax correctly pointed out but still has some merits.
And its value is enhanced by finding the proper situations where it might work better, especially if we're using it after some fictional play.
Slow progression and a slow proper betting selection are the best tools, imo, to try to control the random world.
The rule is to lose, first let's focus about NOT to lose then we will think about winning.
as.

Asym,
You started with a wrong direction. There is no equilibrium in a game of house edge as every bet is subjected to that and in long run, all bets will go far from equilibrium in terms of "extra losses". Variance can take them even more far. Even in a game without any house edge, a bet might not get equilibrium even after a billion trials.
D'alembert is a classic comedy of errors and based on ideas that do not work in real life. It has no mathematical basis to make it a winner.
True, but equilibrium should be intended in several ways, let's say a sort of RTM effect or something like that.
D'Alambert is the worse progression ever invented, sure.
as.

We are limited, the casino is not! That is 99% of the problem, oursNOT the casinos.
Yes Banker has a slight edge, and yes a female can generally get sex anytime she wants it and males cannot. And, as soon as you say it will be Banker, a Player comes out and repeats and repeats and repeats. Then you say the rule of 4, 3 is easy and it will go back tot he Banker on the 4th. After all it is 40 Players already to 22 Bankers. Then another 7 Players came out in a row. It happens and always will. That pretty female was also looking for sex and 6 men turned her down, you found a female to be with in two minuets and you have never done that. It happens.
Doesn't matter what Banker and Player does. What does matter is the wager on a spot not what the stats are for B or P.
When we can win (FOR WHATEVER REASON) use what makes you feel good for motivational purposes to profit and keep winning.
I have done extremely well at Fortune 7's lately with either $25 or $50 at risk. And, the reason I have done extremely well is because I don't wager it all the time.
Stop getting hung up on the following: "if it's a player or a banker". Forget the statistics of each and their percentage of hits, does not mean jack for your wager. I know that is going to bring an onslaught of chastising but the period of time you are playing that shoe, it really statistically means nothing.
The problem is, people believe and wager by what is written about by well known or famous authors in relation to statistical figures.

Al, I understand your points and in your fairness nobody demonstrated a possible value of statistics applied at baccarat.
But I'm firmly convinced that besides certain considerations, what it counts is the W/L ratio and its related issues.
Are there some features helping me to occasionally guess which direction will take place some events? Imo, yes.
as.

Absolutely each of us has considerations, which IMO weigh more than the percentages of what can or cannot prevail according to 10,000 or 100,000 or 1 million shoes or in fact, past shoes, etc.

Al, I understand your points and in your fairness nobody demonstrated a possible value of statistics applied at baccarat.
But I'm firmly convinced that besides certain considerations, what it counts is the W/L ratio and its related issues.
Are there some features helping me to occasionally guess which direction will take place some events? Imo, yes.
As,
What I was referring to was the statistical percentages of B or P to prevail, etc.

Absolutely each of us has considerations, which IMO weigh more than the percentages of what can or cannot prevail according to 10,000 or 100,000 or 1 million shoes or in fact, past shoes, etc.
I can't wait to play with you (as well as with some others), I'm confident we might improve our strategies reciprocally.
as.

Just don't let me get too side tracked looking out for the black panthers, SoS Flags, dogs and cats on skateboards, Vanilla Ice, Black Horses running through the casino, Wizards, Gnomes, etc., etc. ;)

Just don't let me get too side tracked looking out for the black panthers, SoS Flags, dogs and cats on skateboards, Vanilla Ice, Black Horses running through the casino, Wizards, Gnomes, etc., etc. ;)
What about dragons? ^^
as.

What about dragons? ^^
as.
Yes those too! Actually everything that 21Aces posted pictures or videos about, I have actually seen all those in the casino last week, or was I dreaming???? :zzz: ??? ??? ??? ???

Hey AsymBacGuy,
What if you looked at how often this method would lose.......and then created a progression around that W/L record?
Example :
If you lose all 66 units let's call it 1 total bank loss. Now, the next series is the same..........trying to win the 66 units back.
Then if that is a loss, then we multiply the total bank x 2. Basically we are using a Labouchere with the total bank instead of each bet.
You would need to lose many banks (66 units each) to lose your entire stake. In this example your total stake might be 10 banks or more.
I call this a nested progression.......and you can use as many as you like to create a method. :thumbsup:

Smart progression and bank roll. Bank roll is a big factor, but so is laying in wisely.
Could you do it if this was on your side of the table? Maybe not if you co crazy with it.
(http://www.vegastripping.com/images/news/ariachipsminibacc.jpg)

Hey AsymBacGuy,
What if you looked at how often this method would lose.......and then created a progression around that W/L record?
Example :
If you lose all 66 units let's call it 1 total bank loss. Now, the next series is the same..........trying to win the 66 units back.
Then if that is a loss, then we multiply the total bank x 2. Basically we are using a Labouchere with the total bank instead of each bet.
You would need to lose many banks (66 units each) to lose your entire stake. In this example your total stake might be 10 banks or more.
I call this a nested progression.......and you can use as many as you like to create a method. :thumbsup:
Yep. I called it as a multilayered plan but the concept is the same.
And your idea is appliable even before starting the original progression so further diluting the already very low risk of busting.
Even better is to form separate progression banks per any distinct event played.
At baccarat whenever certain events are cold, generally some derived and indirect opposite situations are hot or at least not cold simultaneously.
Therefore we might set up this progression working on both cold (L) and hot (W) different situations, so reducing the stress to forcely reach an equilibrium point.
Now we don't necessarily need to reach the equilibrium in a way or another PER EACH BANK (EVENT) PLAYED as we can even let it go the bank(s) performing bad, as we have gained the profit elsewhere.
as.

Of course the goal on the W side progression will be to get a deviation instead of an equilibrium. Hence utilizing an opposite way of thinking (positive progression).
as.

Baccarat world moves from deviations and equilibrium points and we know that some events tend to be deviated infinitely whereas others won't, those last touching many many times the zero (equilibrium) cutoff.
Nonetheless we know that such features may easily disappoint this assumption, let's think about B/P gap favoring the right side, B singles overcoming B streaks and many other related issues.
Anyway we know that thanks to the bac features, the ranges of intervention of certain events will be more restrained than others by 100% accuracy.
Which movements should help us most in order to control the outcomes?
Of course those events touching more likely the zero point several times so that the progression presented can "cover" the slight expected deviations going toward a side or another.
We see that in such effort we don't want to classify a given event as good or bad, we want just to pick up the situations where some deviations are more likely to go back to an ideal zero point.
Let's call it a kind of "equilibrium" goal, but it really isn't as every event slightly going back and forward to a point different to zero will allow us to get a profit by a very slow MM.
So we know that even aiming to points different to zero we could find possible valid spots to start our betting.
In reality, most part of authoritative gambling experts of the past had stated that searching for deviations is the best tool to try to get the best of it.
A perfect opposite thought of what just discussed.
Since I'm not in the position of confuting such claimings, I'll take for grant this thought.
Better going toward deviations than hoping for a return to equilibrium.
Still the problem is posed about how much to look for deviations. In a word, when to stop the betting or, better, when to start the betting?
Good questions.
Yet we get answers.
Without a doubt, the probability to get deviations toward a given side and per any event considered will be increased after many equilibrium points will be crossed, and of course we know that we don't necessarily need to reach zero eq. points to win.
On the other hand, a lot of equilibrium points (widely considered) crossed must be considered as a deviation itself.
Then our strategic plan should be focused about deviations. Period.
Easy to say it, but what about the practice?
Actually there are no positive or negative deviations. There are deviations. Each deviation will get its peaks in a way or another. It's just a matter of time.
Some deviations are more likely than others, nevertheless even an unexpected deviation (multiple clusters of B singles vs B streaks, for example) will reach high points. We can't do anything to prevent such occurence if we have chosen to bet toward B streaks.
But we know that this unlikely occurence cannot last for long.
Imo, the probability to get simultaneous high deviations on multiple events (deviations also intended as many equilibrium spots reached) is so small to allow us to set up a profitable plan.
as.

A random world itlr is composed by the same number of deviations and (pseudo)equilibriums.
Of course we know that globally taken, the deviations will get a kind of advantage over the equilibriums, yet we cannot know when and at which degree such deviations will take place.
Yes, the more we play the more will be unlikely to reach an equlibrium point, but only if we consider the equilibrium point as a X=Y spot, meaning two opposite events reaching a zero gap point.
In setting up our strategy we cannot forget that we shoudln't care care less about the value of deviations, just focus about the number of Deviations/Equilibrium spots as itlr and even on shortest terms such values are less influenced by variance.
as.

Moreover, at baccarat we know that certain deviations/equlibrium ratios are infinitely shifting toward one side so we can't rely upon the sole probability to get some ratios breaking even itlr.
We know they will be shifted toward one side with 1 trillion accuracy.
We shouldn't want to guess the value or the probability of getting deviations as we cannot have any hint about this; we want to take advantage of the fact that D/E ratios of many events will be either equal or shifted toward the left side.
Therefore limiting the variance and at the same time trying to get more precision about the nature of the future hands dealt.
as.

Any baccarat system is based upon the probability to get A or B and if you have read my posts you know there are several ways to classify a given event as A or B.
Generally speaking, an A/B word is composed by deviations and equilibriums. The last situation could be classified into two different categories: real equilibriums and "false" equilibriums.
False equilibriums must be intended as those situations where the gap between two opposite events tend to "stall", meaning they are not gaining a sensible deviation toward one side or another despite the A/B gap is different to zero (ok, mathematically it's 1).
The deviation side is easier to evaluate: anytime A or B chance will deviate, we just have to take into account HOW MUCH or, preferably, HOW it deviates.
UNLESS THE GAME IS MATHEMATICALLY OR BY OTHER REASONS SHIFTED TOWARD ONE SIDE, the flow and the gap of these three different features itlr will tend to be equal to zero.
Notice that itlr we are certain that EC will be more or less deviated toward one side as the real equilibrium will be a kind of utopistic goal.
Nonetheless, regularly betting toward deviations without a sensible reason must be considered as a sort of "pushing the luck" strategy as such deviations (in a direction or another) are just the by product of the natural flow of the outcomes, meaning that the opposite false or real equilibrium situations are due.
Actually a world mainly composed by real equilibriums and/or limited deviations will be a perfect world to set up a simple progression.
On the other part, regularly betting toward deviations doesn't get the job as we cannot know at which degree and at which frequency (unless from a theorical point of view) such deviations will take place.
It's true that regularly betting toward real or false equilibriums without a reason doesn't make the job either as we could easily get multiple deviations intended as real deviations (going farther from a zero gap) or false deviations (partial RTM effect from a perfect zero gap) even more difficult to properly assess.
Therefore a so called "perfect" strategy cannot solely rely upon deviations or equilibriums without knowing how many times and how much a given opposite statistical situation had occurred.
Instead, we should place our confidence to get more reliable results about the EMPIRICAL probability to get favourable outcomes after having known that some expected results are due. As they must due by mathematics and common probability.
Talking about practice, let's say we want to set up a slow multilayered strategy based on the increased probability to get more P 4s than P 4+s (more Player 4 streaks than Player superior streaks).
Good, we know that itlr we'll get by 1 trillion certainty more P 4s than P 4+s, so we cannot be wrong.
Not a vulgar finding as roulette can't give us such certainty.
True, the vig itlr will cancel the validity of such finding, still we know that in this scenario A>B.
Technically and mathematically we know we will be more right than wrong whenever after a P 4 streak a Banker hand will show up by an expected or better probability to show an asymmetrical hand, a hand where B side is mathematically favorite.
Whenever after a P 4 streak the next hand will be symmetrical (50/50) placed, we know our confidence about getting a B hand will go to the toilet.
Since we know that the mathematical probability to get an asym hand after a P 4 streak is around 1/11, we know we'll be wrong 10 times over 11. No matter how we think to be genius to guess what will be the next hand, especially if we won the hand on a symmetrical spot (it's just luck!).
Nevertheless itlr we'll get the same amount of deviations, real equilibriums and false equilibriums occurring between P 4s and P 4+s. Still we have the luxury to know that real equilibriums are just utopistic or short term findings as there are no REAL equilibriums on those opposite events itlr.
That doesn't mean our strategy should be focused to stubbornly hoping for more expected outcomes, just to properly assess the "deviationsreal equilibriumsfalse equilibriums" situations happened in the past as at baccarat they will have a slight different degree of showing up.
The more one or more features had deviated from the norm in regard of their expected probability, the better will be our results. Especially taking into account several multiple AB situations, knowing that at baccarat when certain A events will be heavily present some different and related counter B situations will be less proportionally present.
as.

As,
Sorry, and I have played this game a long time. You admit there is no perfect equilibrium, etc., I understand what you are saying with the A/B and the swings and the 'catchups'. Works sometimes and will work at certain points and will failure other attempts for the shoe changing or 'not selfcorrecting', etc., etc.
But, the bottom line when all things appear the shoe will correct and provide the equilibrium, etc., what happens when the shoe continues and adds another 10 15 in the unequal direction and then when you realize that, it suddenly goes back to correcting itself and as soon as you get on it that way, it changes once again and adds fur unequal results, etc.
To me, it's like a drunk driver, there is no way to tell which way he will truly go, even he doesn't know.

Al, your comments are appropriate.
Anyway I was hoping to hear from a roulette player that at gambling games equilibrium (being false or real) simply doesn't exist.
First hand is a deviation by definition, BB BP PB or PP aren't equilibriums and so on...
Gambling games are characterized just by deviations. There's no one single pattern producing an equilibrium. No one, even though most players consider as a deviation any "simple" pattern coming out.
The problem is trying to get a kind of advantage from this assumption.
And imo this task can be done only by filtering and filtering and filtering the shoe outcomes as any random world is limited, especially taking into account multiple situations where we can easily toss the unfavourable events privileging the best ones.
as.

Al, your comments are appropriate.
. There's no one single pattern producing an equilibrium. No one, even though most players consider as a deviation any "simple" pattern coming out.
.
as.
That's exactly correct. The same one in a shoe, might not repeat it self for hundreds or thousands of shoes. Then again, it might repeat itself for many spots the very next shoe. Play it one way and the next time the same trend or bias comes around, you have to play it completely the opposite for part of it and then the same and then entirely different to continue successfully with it. Extremely hard to do, almost impossible. That is why, the fewer and the least wagers, pump up the value, is so important crucial.

That's exactly correct. The same one in a shoe, might not repeat it self for hundreds or thousands of shoes. Then again, it might repeat itself for many spots the very next shoe. Play it one way and the next time the same trend or bias comes around, you have to play it completely the opposite for part of it and then the same and then entirely different to continue successfully with it. Extremely hard to do, almost impossible. That is why, the fewer and the least wagers, pump up the value, is so important crucial.
Now we really talk the same language.
But remove the phrase "almost impossible", replacing it with "the odds we can't succeed in that are remote". :)
My word that very soon baccarat pits won't be so glad to accept us as players. Especially high stakes players like you.
as.

There are very limited shoes we can capitalize on, at least with a decent ROI in the HL's. I am NOT talking about the main floor, buy in with $200 to $400 or so and make $100 or $150 and walk. I am talking about buying in with $10k to $50k and making say, $10 to $20k. It is tough! I am not referring to kamikaze attempts either of $5k or $10k one or two wagers. I am talking about $300 to $1,000 average wagers.
Now that I have all the glitz and glam out of my system about the casinos, yes, I am more dangerous. That is why that shoe that haunts me I wrote about, I should have had $500k to $1M on that shoe easily. If I pumped it up to $2025k a hand, I would have won 40 or so hands and lost maybe 10.
It can be done, extremely hard because the majority of us get burned out, broke, lose interest, or give up when we finally get the wherewithal, the experience and the knowledge coupled with the guts to do it.
It's complicated.

Of course it's complicated.
After all we're talking about the possibility to regularly beat an EV game.
Maybe we'll be able to set up a BS baccarat team, we never know...
as.

There are very limited shoes we can capitalize on, at least with a decent ROI in the HL's. I am NOT talking about the main floor, buy in with $200 to $400 or so and make $100 or $150 and walk. I am talking about buying in with $10k to $50k and making say, $10 to $20k. It is tough! I am not referring to kamikaze attempts either of $5k or $10k one or two wagers. I am talking about $300 to $1,000 average wagers.
So you're talking about a spread of a little more than 3:1. Let's say 3001200 for a spread of 4:1. What's the average bet size with that kind of spread? 450? 600? maybe? To make 10k then need to win 20 more bets than lose at $500 in a good session if flat bet. But you're not talking flat betting I don't think. So do you think a 4:1 spread can accomplish this? I suppose it can happen in a good high% win rate.
So today real numbers made 22 units in 99 bets place with average bet size of about 2.2 units (I added them up just now). I came out with a 58.5% win rate. No, not $500 a hand :( So what is the expected win rate? What I'm getting at is that win rate is not achievable for any significant number of hands so . . . if you can't get a real high % win rate then a 4:1 spread is not big enough to achieve the wins.
Of course it's complicated.
After all we're talking about the possibility to regularly beat an EV game.
I guess this is a long winded way of asking don't you have to figure a win rate to establish the bet spread?

Now that I have all the glitz and glam out of my system about the casinos, yes, I am more dangerous. That is why that shoe that haunts me I wrote about, I should have had $500k to $1M on that shoe easily. If I pumped it up to $2025k a hand, I would have won 40 or so hands and lost maybe 10.
Shoulda woulda coulda

Shoulda woulda coulda
Absolutely 110%!

Absolutely 110%!
I'll add one, if my aunt had nutz she'd be my uncle.

My point was, the limited chances are there. Hit them when the opportunity is there and try not to get caught up in all the superstition and false reasoning(s). Try not to think back on any other previous shoes or hands and play what the current shoe is producing.
I still say, the mentality of the game has changed to the 'cut', thereby always missing the trends/bias, chops, clusters, virtually everything except the true 'cut' to whatever is opposite.

Hit them when the opportunity is there and try not to get caught up in all the superstition and false reasoning(s). Try not to think back on any other previous shoes or hands and play what the current shoe is producing.
I still say, the mentality of the game has changed to the 'cut', thereby always missing the trends/bias, chops, clusters, virtually everything except the true 'cut' to whatever is opposite.
How do we know when opportunity is there? Whenever I notice opportunity, it usually disappears more than not. I USUALLY laugh when someone at my casino notices a certain trend only for it to end abruptly almost all the time.
I think many more woulda shoulda and coulda to come.

How do we know when opportunity is there? Whenever I notice opportunity, it usually disappears more than not.
That is correct. The are there and then they are not, and everything in between.

I usually wait for a trend (streak, chops or any kind of pattern) and try to end it with three attempts. I would stop after that. Today, there was a long pattern of 2s, with the exception of the 4th one with a tie. Everyone one of on the table was following it except me. I end up losing my three hands. Then I thought about OPPORTUNITY and follow the crowd. I did get one hand but loss the next. So the OPPORTUNITY was short lived. By the time everyone starting and begin to increase their bets, it ended. Of course I did worse than everyone else.

When the board is not predominately 2's or doubles, I like to wager the opposite after a single that prevailed, then if there was a double, I stick on the side that was the double.
Single, wager other side
Double, wager the same side and stick until it falls off.

This is not a post about bet selection, even though at baccarat there are better BS than others as some events are long term mathematically shifted.
So for example and generally speaking wagering to break P 4s is a better selection than wagering to break ANY 4s and the worst option is a plan intended to break B 4s.
This because itlr B4<B4+ and P4>P4+.
In reality, the intermediate situation (wagering to break any 4s) may give us interesting statistical features as globally taken the 4s class will go more likely back and forward around the zero (equilibrium) point (at the same time giving a theorical lower probability to get strong one side deviations). That is a perfect situation to set up a very diluted progression.
The above statement is a sort of paradox, as many times we'll be forced to bet the mathematical disadvantaged chance (breaking B 4s), but globally taken such strategy will give us a slight lesser impact of variance as now we're wagering to not get two simultaneous opposite relatively high deviated situations for long time.
Imo the idea to include some breaking streaks strategy in our plan is well placed at baccarat for several reasons.
I want to mention only one here.
Let's take the casino war game, a st.upid game where the highest card between players and house will win (unfortunately giving the house a pretty high edge for the same card value rule).
Unfold several times a multi deck shoe, register the simple A or B outcomes (ignoring ties) and itlr you'll see that some events will be more likely than others.
Good, so why casino war game cannot be easily beaten?
There are several reasons for that: we have to play every single hand, the house edge is quite high, we can get a precise situation only playing headsup with the house, but foremost we don't have the opportunity to bet the house side (obstacle overcome in some way by a large spread betting). Then now casinos are using continuous shuffling machines or cutting large portions of the deck.
Still the basic principle remain the same.
At baccarat things are more complicated as there are four different class of ranks having the same value (10s and pictures) and not only any side is getting a point adding two cards value but there's even a third card intervening with some structured rules advantaging B side.
The overall effect made by those particular features will produce a kind of slight specular baccarat situation than the casino war game produces.
Back to the progression topic.
No one progression can control the game (no matter how high is the bankroll utilized compared to the table limits offered) whenever we start the progression at a zero level.
Not even a so called flat betting winning strategy unless it was proven to get an astounding high edge on player's favor (we all know there's no way to do that).
What we can do, imo, is setting up a rigid plan on multiple economically connected situations where either multiple strong deviated and unexpected events had taken place within short periods of time and/or some multiple expected situations had stalled around the zero point within too large periods of time.
We see that there's no a precise direction to be followed: either wagering toward multiple expected deviations and/or waiting the appearance of multiple unexpected events roaming around the zero point for long time.
In a word, we shouldn't want to get mere single RTM or single deviation effects as any random world can't be controlled by those features.
Imo the key word to work on is "multiple".
Multiple events can't stall or deviate forever and ever but at the same time we cannot know when and how much such events will get their expected probability to "balance" the previous features in a way or another.
Therefore, imo, if we don't want to wait some rare favourable flat betting circumstances to bet, we must be prepared to set up a low and multilayered progression starting at a point different from zero. In a way or another (RTM or expected deviation), of course.
And the word "multiple" cannot act other than improving our expectation.
as.

Even though it could appear as a really weird subject, even some "subjective" situations might help us to find what should be our best course of action.
Naturally everything is based upon some objective mathematical and statistical issues where the subjective factor is just an indicator. So we must be very confident about the reliability of this subjective indicator. The pro of this type of "registration" is that a human guy could have experienced long positive or negative situations, meaning he/she carefully played a fair amount of shoes.
Let's say a guy/girl seated next to us is telling that his/her plan is to wager only toward the appearance of P doubles vs superior P streaks adopting a given MM. Unfortunately he experienced a 25 or something consecutive losing streak, that is he got 25 2+ P streaks with no one P double. I can assure you that this is just a sort of science fiction finding, anyway...
First thought should be that in some way this guy knows some basic long term statistical features. We don't want to go deep in the process of assessing how he wants to get the best of it by this finding or if he carefully registered the 2/2+ P streaks ratio (and many other issues related to that).
If we believe in what he says, we know that he experienced a very long negative (for his strategy) sequence, a 5 sr deviation.
Since we're patiently waiting some other triggers dictated by our personal plan, we want to try to take advantage of this subjective deviation.
Hence our new temporary trigger will be shifted to any situation getting any BPP sequence, as now we know that our new "buddy" will be theorically more entitled to get more P doubles than P superior streaks.
It's interesting to notice that a random world cannot be affected by a subjective situation, in a word that the future actual shoe outcomes we are playing in cannot be influenced by a human.
At the same time and taking for granted what the buddy he's talking to us, the probability this player will get higher deviations on this very shoe (and even more on next shoes) will be very very slim.
Nevertheless, nothing can prevent this actual shoe to produce a slight predominance of P 2+ streaks, but the probability to get a 2/2+ P streaks ratio highly deviated to the right are almost non existent.
Now If we want to take as our new trigger such individual probability interfering with an objective probability, what will be our best course of action?
And what if this player leaves the table after one or two losing bets?
Does the probability to get more P doubles than P superior streaks be objectively influenced now or over the next shoes by an individual registration?
as.

If a cat can't capture a parlay once in 20 try he should quit the baccarats and sell pencil out of a tin cup on a streets corner some place. So, maybe try the following style, almost unbreakable, hey hey!
1122345791216222939526992123164218 units bets
32423323222434433442 units profits

With m y current 13 step parlay progression I'm buckin up against a 95% win rate. So, I get clipped for 500 unit in progressions bust out every 100 shoe, so I can win well and regular by capturing just 10 units profits on the 95 winning shoe and I average better than that, hey hey.

Hi sox fan,
What is your strike rate within the first 6 steps of your progression. Just wondering if it would get better result front end loaded.

Hi sox fan,
What is your strike rate within the first 6 steps of your progression. Just wondering if it would get better result front end loaded.
I always like the back load cuz I like being able to capture more units profits the deeper I go in the progression, hey hey.

With m y current 13 step parlay progression I'm buckin up against a 95% win rate. So, I get clipped for 500 unit in progressions bust out every 100 shoe, so I can win well and regular by capturing just 10 units profits on the 95 winning shoe and I average better than that, hey hey.
Probably with my over selected BS tested on millions of shoes, your win rate will be close to 99.999999999%. :thumbsup:
as.

Probably with my over selected BS tested on millions of shoes, your win rate will be close to 99.999999999%. :thumbsup:
as.
I think you could get 9899 percents winning shoe with that 20 step parlay style, hey hey.

If a cat can't capture a parlay once in 20 try he should quit the baccarats and sell pencil out of a tin cup on a streets corner some place.
Those who can't win once in 20 should quit. I don't know about a parlay once in a 20 parlay. Anyone wants to buy some pencils from me?

Last week,Montecarlo casino:26 hands without 2 WIAR playing B.

Last week,Montecarlo casino:26 hands without 2 WIAR playing B.
Thanks for the honesty. I've gotten 2 WIAR on the first try many times as well as on 5plus progressions but many times fail to get 2 WIAR pass 20. Some of the bust days will take away many of the small wins. Luckily it's only in practice. I don't like having to parlay large bets. I've tried reset after 2 or 3 progressions but the wins are not satisfying for the long hours of play.

It's about bet selection first.
Mostly likely we underestimate how fast we can lose AND HOW FAST WE CAN WIN! Strike smart, and take a step back from consecutive losses. Easier progressions and shoes right nearby.
This is winning and you making the right bets to go along for the ride:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlWG7VYDGgc
When you are aligned with what the shoe is doing a good amount can be your skill, but it is not as difficult as other parts of that shoe or other shoes. I made a huge mistake the other night as I got up big (for me) fast and then I went virtual because of it. My selections kept on hitting and I could have made a lot more because the show was complying with my view on the game and bet selection approach. DAMN.

No bottle, no balls, no bankroll, no shot. It's that simple, baby, hey hey.

Very good thread indeed.