It's about Banker doubles distribution.
B doubles are fighting between B 3+ streaks and B singles.
Test your shoes and let me know how many times a B doubles will be followed by another B double streak or anything else.
No wonder, most of the time any B double will be followed by a pattern different to another B double streak up to a 4 level.
I mean that after a B double had come out, the more likely scenario on subsequent B hand will be to get a B 3+ streak or a B single at different degrees.
We could classify such B doubles in such a way:
1- B double followed by another B double;
2- a couple of consecutive B doubles followed by another B double;
3- a triple of consecutive B doubles followed by another B double.
In a word, each class of B double situation will get a more likely different B double situation than expected and the more we are going deeply in the process the better will be our results.
Say we set up three fictional players betting toward NOT having another B double after a B double appearance by a 1-2 wager progression.
Number #1 player will lose whenever after a B double another B double will come out.
Number #2 player will lose whenever after a couple of B doubles a third B double will come out;
Number #3 player will lose whenever after a triple B double a fourth B double will come out.
Test your shoes and you'll notice that 4+ B doubles in a row will come out very very rarely.
It's up to us to determine how deep will be our loss.
The probability to get multiple B doubles in a row is inversely proportional to the number of B consecutive doubles.
Thus, a profitable and less risky plan is to bet after having waited that two or three B doubles had come out in a row.
Nonetheless, many shoes are presenting a single B double appearance.
Again, after a given deviation was reached, the probability to get something different than a B double is endorsed.
We want to set up a limit, that is a very unlikely 4+ consecutive B doubles appearance. After such limit was reached, we do not want to bet a dime.
As a 7 or more B doubles appearance could easily destroy our previous more likely profits.
Notice that per every class of distributions, a clustering effect will be in order, no matter what.
I mean that it will more likely to get single B double situations if a single B double situation had come out and the same happens for superior levels.
Moreover, B doubles are more likely to come out in clusters whenever few B singles had come out in the previous fragments of the shoe and vice versa.
Alrelax is right. What didn't happen so far is less likely to show up as a finite shoe is always a card dependent proposition and vice versa.
Actually and after millions of shoe tested, the number of situations when consecutive B doubles are followed by single or 2-in a row B doubles are out numbered by the same opposite events.
What didn't happen could happen but what did happen could more easily happen again. Providing a careful classification of what we are registering.
as.
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on May 04, 2018, 01:11:51 AM
......................................
Alrelax is right. What didn't happen so far is less likely to show up as a finite shoe is always a card dependent proposition and vice versa.
Actually and after millions of shoe tested, the number of situations when consecutive B doubles are followed by single or 2-in a row B doubles are out numbered by the same opposite events.
What didn't happen could happen but what did happen could more easily happen again. Providing a careful classification of what we are registering.
as.
In fact, the presentments (results) are not so clear cut. Sure--at times the are and that is when you 'pounce on it and pounce, fast & hard' and yet--other times, probably better than 50% of the times you actually play--they are not so clear.
Problem is, we confuse ourselves, with the way I play or even if you have a 'set method' you sit there and watch people winning huge--on long streaks of repeating hands or long and beautiful chop-chop or an extra long doubles, etc. People get influenced, period.
In so many cases, the match between observations and expectations do not (DO NOT) equal the reality that comes about. It might for a few hands and then once your confidence builds and builds, it bites you and your mind begins to tell you, "Wager the opposite of what you think and you will certainly win" or, follow the PHO eating chubby Viet guy speaking in broken English about how the dragon's tale is going to be so long, it is a females 'love you long time dream'!!", etc., etc., etc. You laugh and you place your $100.00 wager and the Viet dude places table max of $5,000.00 and wins. Then you follow him....................end of my morning story.
Three. four players, experienced or not--talking at the baccarat table. Right then and there, the smart one will hear only, "We talked and talked and pointed and played. We won and lost. We lost and won. What does it all mean? We compared different expectations to the same observations and reality produced what some of us thought and as well, produced what some of us did not think".
BTW, there was this Viet dude at the casino a couple of weeks ago, and he points to the tail forming on the appropriate road on the score board and starts saying, "Love you long time--just like the song--Banker love you long time---wager on it".......
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12tce-THLUE
As well:
"............................chance as to the results happening and what the shoes have produced while I was playing the game of baccarat, because the analysis will not allow me to win the type of money at baccarat I have discovered that can be obtained with identifying and wagering during the 'waves' and 'opportunities' produced by shoes of the game."............................
Asym,
Something I wrote elsewhere on the board:
" allowing other players to Influence you. however works both ways and I've had some of my largest wins with camaraderie and unofficial Partnerships where we followed each other at the table and we made consistent wins and avoided losses But be forewarned that easily backfires and causes ill will and a fast decent to losing a buy in as well."
Quote from: alrelax on May 04, 2018, 06:21:32 PM
Asym,
Something I wrote elsewhere on the board:
" allowing other players to Influence you. however works both ways and I've had some of my largest wins with camaraderie and unofficial Partnerships where we followed each other at the table and we made consistent wins and avoided losses But be forewarned that easily backfires and causes ill will and a fast decent to losing a buy in as well."
So you are admitting that your greatest profit was merely plain luck, your "camaraderie" and "unofficial partnerships" don't prove a successful strategy but more like wherever the wind blows I lean...it means NOTHING to me!
How could someone perceive seriously what you are saying, you know, other gamblers, like yourself, don't have a tag on their forehead which says "loser, bet against me", it's your fallacious perceptions and delusions of what is proper betting, nothing more than that.
@ ABG,
As long as you are focusing on "trees" and NOT the "forest" you'll be doomed to lose sooner or later.
Try to see the greater picture, oh yes, there's one if you try to perceive it...!
Streaks here, chops there, isolated or not...all of these won't help you because the fall under the mainstream probability which its bottom line is HE, period.
Instead try to realize what happens from 1 shoe to the next, what's the difference between 1 set of 40 to 50 results to the next one...!
Try to see a bit further than chops and streaks.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on May 05, 2018, 11:53:10 PM
So you are admitting that your greatest profit was merely plain luck, your "camaraderie" and "unofficial partnerships" don't prove a successful strategy but more like wherever the wind blows I lean...it means NOTHING to me!
(Sorry , but you took it totally out of context. It doesn't have anything to do with bet selection it just has to do with larger wagering when I and others at the table are winning and time to Pump It Up. Please do not twist my words around it's the first and last time I'm going to ask you not to do that any longer.)
How could someone perceive seriously what you are saying, you know, other gamblers, like yourself, don't have a tag on their forehead which says "loser, bet against me", it's your fallacious perceptions and delusions of what is proper betting, nothing more than that.
(Again you were chastising and you're attempting to humiliate a fellow member and I would appreciate if you would leave me out of your quotes in your conversations, again if you don't like it don't go on my threads and you don't have to quote me as well. )
@ ABG,
As long as you are focusing on "trees" and NOT the "forest" you'll be doomed to lose sooner or later.
Try to see the greater picture, oh yes, there's one if you try to perceive it...!
Streaks here, chops there, isolated or not...all of these won't help you because the fall under the mainstream probability which its bottom line is HE, period.
Instead try to realize what happens from 1 shoe to the next, what's the difference between 1 set of 40 to 50 results to the next one...!
Try to see a bit further than chops and streaks.
@blueangel. Hi!
Actually my super hyper over selected betting plan dictates to consider a single shoe just as a single leaf of a branch, the tree begins to form after 20-30 or more shoes and the forest is just the product of many many trees.
I'm not presenting magical patterns to chase, I've found such patterns as the best tools to greatly increse the probability of success that can't be anything else than the mathematical reflexes of what can happen or not happen per certain range of shoes.
I'm not guessing or chasing anything as I know very well the standard deviation values of those patterns, whether they'll come out isolated, in clusters, in clusters of isolated events or in clustered clusters. Everything per each single level of statistical apparition.
To explain the idea in clearer words, I'm betting from zero to 1 spot per single shoe. Always if my strict conditions are met.
In the 50.68/49.32 infinite process something is going to happen more likely than not even though our mathematical expectation will be negative no matter what.
as.
Hi ABG!
What news from LV, getting warmer?
I remember when I was there I was wearing t-shirts on the middle of February and was wondering what happens there during Summer months...I guess you could fry eggs at the desert electricity free!
Back to the topic, I know a lot of things and I want to share them, but why, have you wonder?
It is because I prefer to help persons who, I might don't know personally, but I could walk on their shoes, much better you rather than the casinos.
So yes, I want to rub your victories into their arrogant faces and noses!
All you have to do is to show a little bit of faith, not in me, but mostly in you and what you are doing!
We could summarize the winning rules in 3 sentences}
1) There are 2 kind of probabilities, the sequential which has to do with the order of the results, and the general probability which dictates the averages for every possible event.
When you are talking about steaks & chops then you are speaking about the sequential probability, but this is only half of the whole, the other half has to do with quantities, how many times this event happen, how many times the other...and this is how we determine the degree of deviations from the mean/average.
Here comes the important part so pay attention;
When these 2 kinds of probabilities meet, in other words a single bet would satisfy both of them, this is the strongest bet.
You have 2 categories, in 1 one you count total of streaks VS chops and on the second you count how many times each side (P & B), find the bet which would satisfy BOTH of the requirements SIMULTANEOUSLY!
2) What I consider as the best pattern bet, when we're talking about patterns it means that we are expecting sequences to conform in a certain order of results, is the ANTI-Decision Before Last.
Ain't all patterns, permutations, sequences the same, you might wonder, my answer is no and I'm going to provide you a brief but convincing explanation;
The DBL is expecting to win by finding 1 streak after the other, also 1 chop after the other, thus if sequences don't bring them in bunches it fails, usually that's the case.
We witness a few repeats here, a few chops there and all those 2-3 sets are the most frequent event before eventually a large streak comes, but when it happens is already late!
Therefore, according the sequential probability, a streak of repeats or chops has half chances to reach 3 in a row rather than remaining on 2 in a row.
Of course if we'd accounted for ALL possible streak ranges (3,4,5,6...etc) we would see that are equal to the total streaks of 2 in a row.
In order to have an advantage and not confirm the HE, we HAVE TO assume that after EVERY lost bet, that could be the beginning of 5,10,15,20...etc loses in a row!
This is how we conclude that we must stop immediately after 1 single loss, this way, no matter how long a streak might be, we lose only once per bet occurrence, but the situations which will be wins are twice as much from the 3+ streaks.
That's why ODBL is superior to DBL.
3) Establish a balance checkpoint per 100 results, increase or decrease the amount of bet according to the profit or loss during last 100 decisions.
For 0 change in your balance don't increase/decrease your bets
From 1 up to and including 5 more losses/wins (during last 100) then increase/decrease by 10% your bets (for next 100).
From 6 up to and including 10 more losses/wins (during last 100) then increase/decrease by 20% your bets (for next 100).
From 11 up to and including 15 more losses/wins (during last 100) then increase/decrease by 30% your bets (for next 100).
From 16 up to and including 20 more losses/wins (during last 100) then increase/decrease by 40% your bets (for next 100).
From 21 up to and including 25 more losses/wins (during last 100) then increase/decrease by 50% your bets (for next 100).
From 26 up to and including 30 more losses/wins (during last 100) then increase/decrease by 60% your bets (for next 100).
From 31 up to and including 35 more losses/wins (during last 100) then increase/decrease by 70% your bets (for next 100).
From 36 up to and including 40 more losses/wins (during last 100) then increase/decrease by 80% your bets (for next 100).
From 41 up to and including 45 more losses/wins (during last 100) then increase/decrease by 90% your bets (for next 100).
From 46 up to and including 50 more losses/wins (during last 100) then increase/decrease by 100% your bets (for next 100).
For table minimum 1$ the base bet will be 10$ and recommended BR 1,000$.
For table minimum 5$ the base bet will be 50$ and recommended BR 5,000$.
For table minimum 10$ the base bet will be 100$ and recommended BR 10,000$.
For table minimum 25$ the base bet will be 250$ and recommended BR 25,000$.
For table minimum 100$ the base bet will be 1,000$ and recommended BR 100,000.
After addition/deduction of the percentage which reflects the difference in the base bets, round it up/down to the nearest whole number, for example 14.4 would become 14 and 16.6 would become 17 units base bet.
Perfect, BA!
That's another aspect of what I was talking about.
My patterns are just the best (imo) way (and more are coming) to get the best of it providing a careful assessment of what happened in the past.
Actually take any pattern you want, the more shoes you play/observe, better is the probability to get a kind of balancement ratio, especially if some patterns are more likely than others.
Say we have a fictional player betting toward B singles and B 3s after any B double appearance.
That is we do not want to get one or more consecutive B doubles in a row.
This player is going to cross a 25% unfavorite/75% favorite ratio no matter what.
Actually there will be more B 3s than B singles after a B doubles, yet a card finite deck must act in some way in either direction.
Such player will get a finite number of isolated B doubles and a finite number of 2-in-a-row or superior B doubles. And so on.
Since the expected ratio is always 3:1, we know that itlr isolated B doubles will be almost equal to superior clustered B doubles.
Easy to see that splitting the outcomes into precise patterns will help us to restrict the variance.
For somewhat "weird" reasons, B doubles are going to distribute more balanced than other balancements.
The same for a fictional player betting toward two B doubles in a row vs the superior counterparts.
The process is more controllable up to 3 B doubles in a row vs the superior counterparts.
Since the overall slight baccarat propensity is to get opposite outcomes than previous ones, our 1-level, 2-level and 3-level fictional players are going to get more balanced results than expected.
In a word, we are trying to control the randomness as we are taking into account precise results itlr.
In fact, every single pattern (whatever considered) will fight against the same opposite situation up to a point where a given deviation MUST come back.
So there are no positive or negative patterns, just ratios.
Of course a 3:1 general probability might come out in clusters or isolated and the same happens (now in long term reversed situations) for the counterparts.
Since sooner or later unfavorite patterns must come out clustered to balance the more likely situations happening along the way, we know that our best strategy will be to hope to get such unfavorite pattarns being either isolated or not coming at all (up to a point).
Thus, our fictional players might start the betting process after having resistered that a given number of unfavorite events had come out, possibly by long clusters or in long alternating forms.
Try to test your shoes.
You start the $10 betting after a 4-5 opposite situation ratio had come out per each level of patterns, tripling the standard bet everytime you have lost the attempt.
If you triple up your wagers everytime after every single pattern had gotten a 4 or 5 to zero ratio, you are not going to encounter long negative situations by any means.
If you use the blue angel approach, your resistance to unfavorite situations will last a lot more.
Actually a possible martingaling tripling approach versus a superior 3-in-a-row B doubles approach after a 4-5 deviation had occurred cannot cross any failure, providing you'll have the patience to wait. Guaranteed.
as.
ABG,
Your bet selection of following 1s and 3+s is nothing more than the avant dernier or Decision Before Last, whether you use for Banker or Player it doesn't really matter.
As everybody with a bit of experience knows the 2s will kill your selection, my suggestion is of common sense because it bets for the 2 streak not to become 3 and according sequential probability the favorable situations will be double from the ones which will reach 3+ and will make us lose.
Still if we would continue betting after the 1st loss till the streak breaks that would be a fatal mistake which would bring us to the House Edge sphere!
But by stopping after the 1st lost bet, every first, we'll have just a reduction of our profit equal approximately to half, this means 50% gain from the total wagering minus Banker's commissions when Banker is bet and wins!
We could apply the same principle with 1s against 2+, again we have double the winning chances, the key is to stop after the 1st loss, every first!
The other selection which I've suggested needs charting rather than a mechanical betting pattern, that's because it counts which side is behind and in combination with which of the Streaks VS Chops is trailing, it selects the bets which cover both trailing categories in one unified bet!
If you go this way then you should also determine what must be the minimum deviation before you start betting, if you'd asked me I'd recommended to be 20 times less accumulatively (from both), or even greater deviation and each one to have at least 10 less difference from the one which is ahead.
If for example there is 20 less difference accumulatively but 1 of them has less than 10 shows difference from the leading, then it would be ok because most important is their accumulative total and not their separate totals.
If you'd asked me which of these 2 selections I consider better, I'd prefer the first for practical convenience, it doesn't need charting, also it doesn't have to wait for something to become "due" before starts betting, it could also be profitable even without Money Management.
This truth doesn't have to be confirmed by playing results because after all is what sequential probability indicates, fact and not opinion.
However, if you still think that your selection is better, then all I've to say is that what you are doing is similar to Sputnik's march and Avant Dernier (DBL) which are failures, are not new, regardless if they can be disguised in new descriptions.
So many persons in this forum and others consider Decision Before Last as the best bet and I'm suggesting you to reconsider it!
It's NOT as good as you think!
Hi BA and thanks for your interesting comments.
Nope, my methods have nothing to share with avantderniere.
For example, AD strategy dictates to bet after a 3 streak in order to get more hands on the same streak. And it doesn't take into account the actual distribution or the expected average distribution.
More importantly, B and P sides are very different from a 1s-2s-3s distribution point of view.
Try to bet against P doubles by wagering P singles and P triples or B 3+ streaks wagering B singles and B doubles and let me know if it doesn't make any difference which side you are betting on itlr.
What it counts, imo, is the average distribution of a given series of shoes and not what happens within a single shoe or a couple of shoes, no matter how deep are such very short term deviations.
If after two shoes the number of B doubles is 25 and only two B 3+ streaks had come out, I won't bet a dime.
Actually such huge deviated ratio comes out from few clustered B double patterns and "few" means huge short term variance that cannot be balanced shortly.
I'm not focused on "how many" but always on the word "how".
as.
In my point of view the anti-DBL is better, in other words the streaks of chops and repeats NOT to exceed 2 in a row.
I'd like to emphasize that it wouldn't be better if we would continue betting till the streak breaks!
Regarding your approach, instead of betting against 2 in a row streaks why not bet against an event which has 1 in 32 probability?
This is 5 in a row streak, while 2 in a row has 1 in 4 probability, thus more frequent and more possible to encounter clustered doubles.
But if you've waited for one 5 in a row streak and then bet against it, that would have much better probability to win.
If the 5 streak occurs on Player bet that the next time the Player will have whether less or more than 5 in a row, this is applied by betting for Banker the first 4 bets (1,2,4,8) and the final 5th bet (16 units) for the player.
The same goes for the Bankers side too, it's not the same like if we were betting from the start against any 5 streak because we are betting against two 5 streaks to happen consecutive times on the same side (any side).
Asym'
Here is a 'real' shoe I encountered 24 hrs ago, it is not rare by any standard.
P Dominated shoes happen a lot, shoe after shoe after shoe, to the degree, makes one wonders if the deck composition is true in order to trip up the Chinese players who the majority bet Banker. Yet it is, just one of those thing.
Applying your method as I understand it;
PPP (LL)
B
PPPP (LL)
BB
PPPPP (LL)
BBB
P (W)
B
PPPPPPP (LL)
BB
P (W)
B
PP (LW)
BBBB
P (W)
BB
P (W)
BBBB
PPPP (LL)
So the LW string runs; LLLLLL W LL W LW W W LL = 5W''s vs 11L's
It is easy in hindsight to state, a negative progression (maybe) would be cleared. What about the mental pressure of really losing 6 bets in a row while actually at the table while watching your chip stack deplete.
Losing 6 bets in a row, then having to place that 7th bet, without knowing if you are going to win the bet, experiencing the mental pressure, will the pain continue? In this game, anything can and will happen.
IMO the player can't / shouldn't bet aggressively, because quiet simply "you just never know". Sure in the shoe above, the 7th bet was won, it could equally been another loss.
When you can encounter a ratio of 5 vs 11 (31% strike rate), which has the potential to get even worst, one wonders, "is there anything better I could be doing'? As eluded by BA, wait for 3 or 4 Players then take 2 bites only at betting the cut.
You mention "rare event", what is this rare event? Did I bet too early, if I made a mistake with my understanding of your strategy by all means correct me.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on May 08, 2018, 12:18:36 AM
But if you've waited for one 5 in a row streak and then bet against it, that would have much better probability to win.
If the 5 streak occurs on Player bet that the next time the Player will have whether less or more than 5 in a row, this is applied by betting for Banker the first 4 bets (1,2,4,8) and the final 5th bet (16 units) for the player.
The same goes for the Bankers side too, it's not the same like if we were betting from the start against any 5 streak because we are betting against two 5 streaks to happen consecutive times on the same side (any side).
As much as I'm into probability and expectation. Back to back five by five, or indeed six by six streaks are also not uncommon. The question is, when they do inevitably happen, 'how many losing bets' will such an event cost me?
By the way, a Martingale should never be considered as a staking option at the Baccarat table.
Quote from: Lugi on May 08, 2018, 09:42:30 AM
Asym'
Here is a 'real' shoe I encountered 24 hrs ago, it is not rare by any standard.
P Dominated shoes happen a lot, shoe after shoe after shoe, to the degree, makes one wonders if the deck composition is true in order to trip up the Chinese players who the majority bet Banker. Yet it is, just one of those thing.
Applying your method as I understand it;
PPP (LL)
B
PPPP (LL)
BB
PPPPP (LL)
BBB
P (W)
B
PPPPPPP (LL)
BB
P (W)
B
PP (LW)
BBBB
P (W)
BB
P (W)
BBBB
PPPP (LL)
So the LW string runs; LLLLLL W LL W LW W W LL = 5W''s vs 11L's
It is easy in hindsight to state, a negative progression (maybe) would be cleared. What about the mental pressure of really losing 6 bets in a row while actually at the table while watching your chip stack deplete.
Losing 6 bets in a row, then having to place that 7th bet, without knowing if you are going to win the bet, experiencing the mental pressure, will the pain continue? In this game, anything can and will happen.
IMO the player can't / shouldn't bet aggressively, because quiet simply "you just never know". Sure in the shoe above, the 7th bet was won, it could equally been another loss.
When you can encounter a ratio of 5 vs 11 (31% strike rate), which has the potential to get even worst, one wonders, "is there anything better I could be doing'? As eluded by BA, wait for 3 or 4 Players then take 2 bites only at betting the cut.
You mention "rare event", what is this rare event? Did I bet too early, if I made a mistake with my understanding of your strategy by all means correct me.
Many things people come on the board and say are 'real' happenings/events and shoes, have also been posted by myself with fantastic and repeatitive wins. I have found numerous events that happen with great repeatitvness, not that they are guaranteed by any 100% means, but they happen when I play more than 6 times easily out of 10.
This is just one of the things I have written and posted. There are actuallhy a total of approx. 60 events that are pretty common in Bac, IMO.
"Players Side Repeating Within Beginning/First Section. Players repeating hands in any form of clusters have a frequent tendency to appear within the beginning of the shoe, in the first section. Meaning, 3 + Players with a frequent 1, sometimes 2 Bankers and each time the winning hand is Players it repeats with 3 + occurrences. This kind of section is frequently followed by a section of 1's and 2's in various configurations when the first section losses its Player dominance stance, frequently around the 15-19th hands. Players Side Repeating Within Beginning/First Section. Players repeating hands in any form of clusters have a frequent tendency to appear within the beginning of the shoe, in the first section. Meaning, 3 + Players with a frequent 1, sometimes 2 Bankers and each time the winning hand is Players it repeats with 3 + occurrences. This kind of section is frequently followed by a section of 1's and 2's in various configurations when the first section losses its Player dominance stance, frequently around the 15-19th hands."
I was at the casino the other day and 2 out of 3 shoes were all players in the first 18 or so hands with only 1 Banker each time up on the Big Road and then right back to players with almost every 3rd card for the players adding and every third card for the banker reducing. Sorry, go ahead and blast me.
The shoe with 49 hands that was posted (missing the last 30 maybe? or ties and missing some?) anyway, I love a 20 to a 7 case sernario in the first 27 hands, wow. And like I said in other posts, players are strong in the beginning much higher than 50% of the time.
Quote from: alrelax on May 08, 2018, 11:50:13 AM
The shoe with 49 hands that was posted (missing the last 30 maybe? or ties and missing some?) anyway, I love a 20 to a 7 case sernario in the first 27 hands, wow. And like I said in other posts, players are strong in the beginning much higher than 50% of the time.
Thanks for pointing out the number of hands. I missed a P on the second streak, it actually went to 5 x P. (just noticed you can no longer edit or delete posts after a time period!!)
I don't record Ties as I don't play them. All shoes are now 70 hands or under, due to paranoid casino worried about potential card counting with the "Super Egalite", ever since Eliot Jacobson posted how to. Now a deck is cut from the back, plus they burn cards, which they never did previously, as for this shoe, I exited it early.
Quote from: alrelax on May 08, 2018, 11:25:24 AM
I have found numerous events that happen with great repeatitvness, not that they are guaranteed by any 100% means, but they happen when I play more than 6 times easily out of 10.
The more events you lists, the more likely you are going to notice something that fits the narrative. Couldn't you isolate just one rare event? That is just like me saying, after some monster 10+ hand streak, the shoe will now get very choppy, invariably that is usually the case, but I woldn't bank nor play for it. People see what they want to see, so their beliefs get affirmed. If you were certain of any one single event, you would wait for it's appearance then hammer it, but we know, you are still placing a 50/50 bet, so we don't.
I'm waiting for ASYM to comment, because I'm not even certain I virtually played the shoe posted corrected, I recall reading something about rare-event, so maybe he'd care to explain.
No, no, no no and no. :-)
Of course it's my fault.
In the shoe you posted Lugi (thanks for your interest) and not taking into account additional important shoe per shoe long term statistical situations, I would have won every hand with my #2 plan.
First BB is followed by BBB (W)
Second BB is followed by B (W)
Third BB is followed by BBBB (W)
This is just a "normal" deviation as a fictional player betting after any B double against another B double is W=3 and L=0
Notice that a second fictional player betting against a BB, BB sequence hadn't the opportunity to bet and the same is true for a fictional player betting against a third BB, BB, BB sequence.
After the cutoff point of BB, BB, BB my plan is over, I'm not chasing or hoping to get situations coming out very unlikely. (Strings of 5, 6 or more B doubles could come out sooner or later.
The important thing is that you consider separately those three fictional players with their W and L situations.
Actually and according to my shoe per shoe findings, I play toward clustered winning situations or after a single losing situation.
Plan #1
To take advantage of the very likely situation to get at least one cluster of P 1s and 2s per any single shoe, you have to wait the first condition to appear. That is an apperance of a P single or P double.
In your shoe, first trigger is single P followed by PPPPPPP (a loss), then the second trigger (another P single) is followed by PP (a win). after that we cauldn't care less of what happens next on the same P1-2 streak.
Do you remember what I've stated about the early P 3+ streaks?
More often than not, they are producing a shoe more rich of such streaks than the average expected ratio (4.5 per shoe). Obviously. It's more likely to get strong deviations after an early strong deviation had come out than the opposite situation (there are intricate card distribution issues that confirm this I do not want to talk about).
Since for our #1 plan P 3+ streaks are very bad, I'm less inclined to put in action this plan even if it would have won after the first L.
Alrelax seemed to agree with that even by considering other aspects.
Notice that with my plans (there are at least a dozen of them) it's far more likely to get a starting W (not here for #1 plan), a WW situation (plan #2), a LW situation (plan #1) as opposed respectively to a starting L, a WL situation and a LL situation.
In addition you see that with my W, WW or LW plan I'm trying to get the best of it not compelling to or forcing the normal expected ratio being W=3 and L=1.
That's because I want to extract a very long winning plan reducing at most the inevitable impact of sequences as WWWWWWWWWWWW or LLLL or LL-LLL-LL that will come out along the way.
Per every starting L, WL or LL events, you expect to get a triple favourable amount of starting W, WW or LW situations. Actually it's even larger than that if the plan dictates to bet banker.
Only the vig reduces the economical return, thus we have to select at most our betting opportunities by a multilayered progression.
@BA.
I know your interesting point, but I think that a 1:32 plan is much more difficult to manage. Maybe I'm wrong.
as.
@ Luigi,
You might have seen streaks of 5 and 6 in a row back to back, BUT how frequently??
I guess are not so ordinary...!
@ ABG,
Perhaps eventually you'd realized that your "unbeatable plan" is almost the "DBL" or "penultimate bet" or "avant dernier", no matter how you call it, it's the same thing.
It simply wins when there are chops or 3+ streaks and loses by 2s/doubles, so WHY you think yours is better than that??
My intention is NOT to discourage you, BUT I might be missing something which makes your strategy better than "DBL", thus a genuine interest for your subject.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on May 09, 2018, 02:09:29 AM
@ Luigi,
You might have seen streaks of 5 and 6 in a row back to back, BUT how frequently??
I guess are not so ordinary...!
Not very frequent, however the point I was making is, how many losing bets would it cost you, if it happened once? You could end up chasing for quiet some time thereafter.
@as I found your reply confusing I will re-read it a few times before responding.
Quote(there are intricate card distribution issues that confirm this I do not want to talk about).
Are you referring to the '
not so secret', "when high cards leave the shoe it favours the Player side and when low cards leave the deck it favours the Banker side?
It's very hard to explain strategies coming from years and years of study and play and positive testing.
Frankly if my methods seem to be a bad or a good copy of a worthless strategy invented in the XIX century, I'm totally discouraged.
So I won't go any further.
Lugi: I was referring to the asymmetrical/symmetrical hands distribution with its deviations, an additional tool that IMO helps a lot.
Cheers
as.
ASYM:
You said; "I was referring to the asymmetrical/symmetrical hands distribution with its deviations, an additional tool that IMO helps a lot."
Which is absolutely spot-on in baccarat as well as many aspects of even scientific method and published protocols of countless things. Not just gambling. That is where, IMO and only IMO, so many go wrong!
In my hazardous materials spill release remediation business, the state as well as the EPA has published rules and regulations as well as protocols, but the problem to the definitive mind is the addition of the four words always added, "May or May Not". However, there is something called, "Lack of Receptors" which have variables and unknowns for 'Consideration" as well as "Exposure and Pathways". One has to 'risk analysis the end points' taking into consideration the 'point source' and what spill released as well as the exposure, etc. There is no science to the science that has to be applied and valued. 6 different people doing this, might get 6 different answers and outcomes and then maybe again, all 6 might very well agree, doubtful--but possible.
I could be on a job and a state official pulls up and tells me I have to do 'such and such' because of his opinion of 'receptors' and you could be on the exact same job across the other side of the highway and be told an entirely opposite thing involving the same exact released product, terrain and pathways present. Does it mean the decision I received was wrong or your was?
No different in baccarat. "The consideration of termination or continuance would have to be justified by the likelihood of the outcome". And such as with environmental matters, although there is science involved to the max, statistic's are not used in the absolute valuation of specific matters unless it involves a definitive set of conditions that would be rock-solid and no variance or deviations were able to occur.
Go figure.
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on May 09, 2018, 08:19:33 AM
It's very hard to explain strategies coming from years and years of study and play and positive testing.
Frankly if my methods seem to be a bad or a good copy of a worthless strategy invented in the XIX century, I'm totally discouraged.
So I won't go any further.
Lugi: I was referring to the asymmetrical/symmetrical hands distribution with its deviations, an additional tool that IMO helps a lot.
Cheers
as.
You have failed to address my question;
Am I missing something??
Quote from: Lugi on May 09, 2018, 07:34:32 AM
Not very frequent, however the point I was making is, how many losing bets would it cost you, if it happened once? You could end up chasing for quiet some time thereafter.
@as I found your reply confusing I will re-read it a few times before responding.
Are you referring to the 'not so secret', "when high cards leave the shoe it favours the Player side and when low cards leave the deck it favours the Banker side?
You simply focus only on 1 side...I'm going to give an analogy in order to make my point clearer, you (anyone) could buy lottery tickets for the entire duration of your lifetime and NEVER to become millionaire.
However, every time you are buying those lottery tickets you are entitled to a tiny chance of becoming a millionaire, while on the other hand, you are spending slowly but steadily a tiny amount per time.
The clever investor doesn't have the "lottery" mentality, he/she has the prudent and consistent objective in mind...in other words, if you cannot repeat the same results up to a certain degree, then what you are doing is simply luck and luck cannot be controlled, when you are lucky you win, when not you lose and this is all there is, just plain luck, not success, nor achievements.
To prove that your strategy can win with or without luck then there must be
CONSISTENCY, something you could repeat again and again, anytime you want, the profit could vary from time to time, but there MUST be
always profit.
So buy your "lottery tickets" just because they are costing less, who knows, you could become a millionaire!
Quote from: Lugi on May 10, 2018, 08:50:36 AM
Basically we went from this;
Which then conveniently morphs into;
Mind boggling, a classic example of obfuscation.
I tend not to engage people at the casino, as you don't know what you are walking into. People that have responsible careers, but when it comes to gambling!! I've had the pain of enduring all kinds of weird sh*t. Casino can change the order of the cards in the shoe, nobody knows what the angel machine is capable of with the eye in the sky. "I'm the best player there is, but short of cash at this minute".
Giving up your time, sanity and personal space to listen to some brain malfunction fuzzy logic, then when you explain, what it is they are telling you makes little sense. The defend by reminding you, how they once won 95% of their bets placed in a shoe once. Which in hindsight simply reinforced the delusional way of thinking, if it ever happened at all. I shudder, even angry when people spin such baloney in my direction, who has time, or wants to hear that? When you start to straighten the creased wires, expose the disillusionment, more is simply thrown on top.
One wonders how on earth do such folk function on a daily basis? Of course some don't, if you exclude hanging out of gambling joints. Then you figure, it's simply not worth the effort thinking about, a no win situation, no need to understand, I've unfortunately already encountered it all in the real world. The cognitive dissonance of the OP is breathtaking.
Have a good day Gentlemen
*****Moderator's Warning*****
One time warning. Period.
DO NOT, I repeat--DO NOT insult other members here. This is not allowed and I will not tolerate it any longer.
Check your negativity, humiliating desires, drama arguments and bad attitude at the door when you enter.
If 'ASYM' came on your thread--that is one thing to a certain point, citing disagreement or stating his experiences and thoughts--but still leaving out the negativity in a bad way, the humiliating desires, drama arguments and general bad attitude.
You came on 'ASYM's' thread and IMO he is a valuable and well respected member. Regardless, does not matter if you came on another members thread with the member having only 10 posts and if you said the same thing in the same demeanor and humiliating style you did, I would answer the same way with the same warning.
Do not bring on bashing, chastising, humiliation to a member or belittling in any way.
If you don't like a member, enjoy reading his material, thoughts, finds, experience, whatever it is he is writing about, SKIP IT. (BTW-all you have to do is block the member and you will not even see his material).
Personally, I say and add--if you really feel the way you do--stop wasting your time here and join another website/forum where there are mostly all multi million dollar winning professional baccarat players living the luxurious easy life, all you have to do is pay $52.00 or $60.00 month and magically you will be among a super elite group of members that not only earn millions of dollars (at the admission of the website owner) they really do bash most other message boards and their members.
You directed your disrespect not only at the OP's posting but also personally at the OP. Both at least once if not more in a generic choice words you attempted to use. This is the reasoning for my warning. As well, it applies to you and every one.
Again, this is your First and Last warning, I emphasize that. [/u]
Waiting for part#3.
Thanks Al!
And, LOL, maybe someone should test his/her MMS before posting on this site.
as.
Hi ,
Played around a little with Baccarat unbeatable plan #1 and #2 as presented here just for fun. Played over 21 LIVE shoes only using the player side. First graph is no stop just playing as it falls. Second one I was waiting for a virtual win after a loss in my + + + + - - + + - + + + pattern. Same 21 shoes.
[attachimg=1]
[attachimg=2]
Baelog
And that is why I defined, detailed, and explained how my, 'Resetting & Refreshing' can and will help the serious player with his 'wins' as well as his 'losses'. Actual tangible help with governed encouragement or stopping points.
Baelog, despite the worthless sample, the trick is to try to reduce huge fluctations in either way.
as.
AssymBacGuy I have a method based upon this principals, it dictates to wait for two doubles to hit, then bet for 3+ for the next three coming doubles.
So you betting against five doubles to show in a row without hitting a 3+.
Now I want to grasp your method and fully understand your concept.
You say that we should use a 1-2 progression, what do you mean by that, should we wait for two doubles to hit before attacking against four in a row or do you mean we should start after one fictive double and bet against three doubles not becoming 3+.
Cheers
So AS, I am still confounded as to what you mean by wait for a 12 or 21 on P. Now Sputnik seems to interpret your meaning a little different.
Do you mind clarifying?
J
Jimski I am not talking about P single or double P after 3+ I talk about the doubles method.
Quote
PPP (LL)
B
PPPP (LL)
BB
PPPPP (LL)
BBB
P (W)
B
PPPPPPP (LL)
BB
P (W)
B
PP (LW)
BBBB
P (W)
BB
P (W)
BBBB
PPPP (LL)
My note ...
Lugi post this shoe and AsumBagGuy give a clear explanation and I follow and understand.
Quote
In the shoe you posted Lugi (thanks for your interest) and not taking into account additional important shoe per shoe long term statistical situations, I would have won every hand with my #2 plan.
First BB is followed by BBB (W)
Second BB is followed by B (W)
Third BB is followed by BBBB (W)
This is just a "normal" deviation as a fictional player betting after any B double against another B double is W=3 and L=0
When I read this I understand that he only played for three doubles in a row, one double as a trigger and the other two should become 3+
Using 1-2 progression or multilayered progression.
Quote
Notice that a second fictional player betting against a BB, BB sequence hadn't the opportunity to bet and the same is true for a fictional player betting against a third BB, BB, BB sequence.
After the cutoff point of BB, BB, BB my plan is over, I'm not chasing or hoping to get situations coming out very unlikely. (Strings of 5, 6 or more B doubles could come out sooner or later.
Quote from: Sputnik on October 06, 2018, 01:08:14 PM
AssymBacGuy I have a method based upon this principals, it dictates to wait for two doubles to hit, then bet for 3+ for the next three coming doubles.
So you betting against five doubles to show in a row without hitting a 3+.
Now I want to grasp your method and fully understand your concept.
You say that we should use a 1-2 progression, what do you mean by that, should we wait for two doubles to hit before attacking against four in a row or do you mean we should start after one fictive double and bet against three doubles not becoming 3+.
Cheers
Hi Sputnik!
Think as any single shoe as a matter of "space". Yoiu won't necessarily know which side will be winning next. Who cares?
We only need to "guess" the lenght of W/L spaces.
What not happened so far could present next at various degrees of probability, depending how and how much such deviations had valued in the past.
Therefore, if we want to adopt a 1-2 progression we need to know that a larger quantity than 50% must be winning on the very first step of the progression. I mean the second bet is just a back-up.
Of course, adopting a 1-2 progression will put the house at a math disadvantage as itlr 75% is larger than 25%.
Trying to get more profitable winning opportunities (for example adopting a 1-2-4 progression) will put us at a logarithmic larger risk as now we're betting after two consecutive losses. And it's more difficult to get back 7 units than 3 units.
The average probability to get certain patterns is always the same, but notice that whenever a given pattern had come out it tends to repeat in the same shoe more often than not.
In a perfect world, 3+s should come out by a 1/3 cadence, a thing that almost always never happens.
Yet card distributions favoring 3+s at the start of the shoe are more likely to produce certain patterns not just by quality but by quantity.
The consecutiveness of patterns wasn't studied in detail by anyone and all "bac experts" forgot to assess the general probability to consider any single shoe as a distinct entity from the whole. As every single shoe is a finite and card dependent shoe.
I mean that some previous dispositions could tell us what's the future more likely distribution any shoe will take.
Thus there's no one single and univocal trigger plan to follow.
as.
Quote from: Sputnik on October 06, 2018, 06:55:00 PM
Jimski I am not talking about P single or double P after 3+ I talk about the doubles method.
My note ...
Lugi post this shoe and AsumBagGuy give a clear explanation and I follow and understand.
When I read this I understand that he only played for three doubles in a row, one double as a trigger and the other two should become 3+
Using 1-2 progression or multilayered progression.
I wasn't clear. Not asking about the progression. Was a little confused as to the P12 pattern. Re-reading I see that we wait for a confirmed P1 or P2 and only a 3+ breaks the pattern.
Small sample 30 shoes using 12 prog gains .87 units/per shoe and 66% shoe win rate. It's apparent that this little method will do real well when singles are about average or more than average. Conversely a shoe with a dearth of 1's will fair poorly generally.