You dropped 24 numbers method? You sayed it was the best method until now.

Anyway 20 vs 18 is still an asymmetrical proposition or I'm missing something?

No flaw in randomness? That's ok. I can't dispute this.

BA: didn't mean that huge bettors are winning players, just that people claiming to possess fool proof strategies are supposed to bet more than red/green chips.

Childish? In my country we never ever asked for money to stay alive.

as. 










   

Look, Giz, IMO you devised a brilliant idea to wisely consider outcomes by asymmetrical terms (dozens, etc). After all my nickname speaks for it.
Itlr 1-2 vs 3 or 1-3 vs 2 or 2-3 vs 1 equals to zero (adding the negative tax) but we have to expect some natural deviations that soon or later will show up. That is trying to take advantage of such fluctuations in a way or another.

And you are totally right about the difficulty to put in action those findings on real casinos.

Actually and I'm sure I'm not wrong, if your algorithm works (or my methods work) is because you have found out a possible defect of randomness of roulette results or that in some instances baccarat asymmetrical force will shift the results toward an univocal direction.

I mean that you can't be certain that your roulette samples are perfect random, if they were no one system in the world can beat them.

as.

Quote from: Gizmotron on June 01, 2018, 09:37:32 PM

I already did that. I wrote the foundation for an artificial intelligence algorithm that makes (big bet / small bet) bet selections for the software's perception of best risk and reward results. It even makes difficulty of session adjustments. So where is the million? An algorithm just happens to be a mathematical proof. But the real issue is that I wrote it from guessing and never from probability projections. And no, I don't want that level of proof to just drop into your hands. I don't care about a prize from people that are wrong. And I think of people like you the least. So you are going to be the last to see it. I just want to see your proof that you can't use guessing to win in the long run.

You are taking the wrong side of what I've written. I've always liked your writings. But I fear you are crossing the line a bit.

Anyway, if you think that "guessing" would be a decisive tool to control the random world,
I'd suggest to present your algoriythm at MIT (my cousin works there, so I can easily accommodate your lecture as soon as you wish). Can't guarantee millions for your effort, but you will be the most notable gambling person the world had ever known in case you are right.
Think about how your "guessing" implications will be considered by NASA, for example.

as.

     

Ok Al, a 0.25% mistake is quite acceptable :-))

as.

Xander is absolutey right, but I'd change his words in "nobody CAN'T DEMONSTRATE to win itlr without an edge".

If anybody can demonstrate to win at games without a mathematical edge he would be millionaire without placing a dime on the felt.
The problem is to present a valid scientific evidence of such claim.

Every other attempt to say "hey, I'm consistently winning" without scientifically proving it is a total mere bighornshit. No matter how good or smart will appear the author or the hypothesis involved at the start. 
Especially whether such winning players are placing red or, rarely, green chips.

A final world: Glen hadn't written worse ideas than anybody else and, hey, he's not wagering red or green chips at the table. So i would use more respect for him.

as.

Quote from: alrelax on May 27, 2018, 11:52:29 PM
ASYM,  strong or weak, Streakinv or Antistreak, whatever you want to call it, either way is a strategy either way is playing to match what the presentments are, it doesn't matter it just depends on your vision, frame of mind,  that's what I've been trying to express in my numerous detailed threads. Some people call it streaks and some people call it anti streaks, it's a description but either way is very viable and either way is very winnable as well it's very losable.

But do one thing all the time and nothing is more guaranteed to lose than just that.

Naturally you are right, and that's why is so important to select at most our betting opportunities.
We could be right or wrong at the same level as betting every hand, yet with our very selected plan we are paying an inferior tax and trying to get advantage of RTM or statistical long term findings.

It's quite more likely to get a RRRRRBBBBB at roulette than a BBBBBPPPPP sequence at baccarat.

Imo such baccarat sequence is just one possible sequence over 1024 possibilities for 10 consecutive decisions. At roulette itlr the average probability to get AAAAABBBBB will be very close to 1:1024, at baccarat it isn't.

as.   

Quote from: Xander on May 27, 2018, 12:17:05 AM
Bellagio is ok, it's not great because it has so many immigrants that smoke like dragons.  The smoke makes it unbearable at times.  The Ven and Pallazo are nicer rooms in my opinion, you don't have the piss all over the bathroom floors, and the machines are cleaner.

Actually you are right.
At Bellagio many players like to smoke not only cigarettes but also cigars, thinking that cigars will give them more respect (and it's a lol assumption as they are smoking plastic wrapped cigars that in Montecarlo and everywhere would be considered as real sh.it).
And yes, very often Bellagio high stakes toilet floor is filled by piss. 

as.

Best value?
I think where you can choose to wager at many tables getting huge comps at the same time, so providing you can place a minimum $1000 bet, Bellagio will be the best option.
Then Venetian.

TI or Stratosphere don't belong to the "huge value category", imo.

as.

Quote from: soxfan on May 26, 2018, 10:19:50 PM
A shrewd old cat told me that the only pure mechanical style that would win well and regular over the long run is the anti-streaks style. I tested his style bucking up against 1175 live baccarats shoe on the party poker live casino and managed to capture just over two units per shoe profits so maybe he is right, hey hey.

He is absolutely right thanks to long term baccarat findings:

1- differently to roulette outcomes, itlr baccarat results will produce a far less amount of long streaks than singles or doubles or triples.

2- it's a proven fact that any bac hand will feature a slight propensity to get the opposite hand just occurred (M. Shackleford and some others)

Now, only a fool would think that applying this strategy every shoe will provide profitable situations no matter what.

S.hit happens rarely or in clusters.

as.



   

Quote from: Albalaha on May 22, 2018, 03:26:06 AM
Hmm. A person with 6% edge against house should bet flat with such an amount that can let him survive in the worst possible scenarios. After an obvious enhancement in the bankroll(due to piling profits), he should increase his base bet and continue to bet flat on that amount. Gradually, the 6% edge and this way of increasing the base bet will optimize his profits and keep him safe as well.

Exactly this.

as.

Itlr, you can't win at a negative edge game no matter what, you can just diliute the inevitable risk of ruin at best.

If someone would think otherwise, he/she could present his/her work to the scientific world, maybe trying to get the Nobel prize worth millions.

The only way to demonstrate that some EV- independent games are beatable is presenting exhaustive studies that in some speicific spots unrandomness prevail to the randomness.

as. 
     








 

Baelog, despite the worthless sample, the trick is to try to reduce huge fluctations in either way.

as.

Thanks Al!

And, LOL, maybe someone should test his/her MMS before posting on this site.

as.

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.

Quote from: alrelax on May 09, 2018, 12:15:46 AM
Yes most certainly that is correct. And when you can see extreme value for low-risk and you see it there in front of you as you said it's much easier to walk away with something substantial then sit there and push it back and forth and get sucked in the volatility of the banker player if you didn't start winning and keep winning.

This, this and this.

The statement enlightened in red should be placed below the "Baccarat Forum" section.

as.