Quote from: Sputnik on September 27, 2018, 03:11:48 PM
AsumBacGuy I want to say thank you for a nice topic.
Wondering if you could give a concrete example of the staking plan.

There are so many variations!

Cheers

Thank you.

What do you mean as "staking plan".
Thanks.

as.

Everything you've posted makes much sense to me.

But we know that only real live sessions are the proof of what we are talking about.

Anybody wanting to win money could PM me. We'll meet us in Vegas.
Anything for free.

as. 

Ok Glen.

First our plan is to assess how much an average shoe will conform to the actual shoe.
Such players are betting $5.000 or more per hand, thus they won't to be fooled.

Secondly but more importantly, is how the actual bets are conforming to a general flow of the game.
Now everything comes out in handy such as the general propensity to get good starting points at a given side, predominance of one side, cutoff points.

Moreover, we are carefully noticing what other players' results are. For example, univocal good or bad results are coming whether the shoe is not prodcuing simple patterns as long streaks or long univocal easily detectable patterns.

To simplify, display results are just one side of the issue. Cumulative players outcomes are another part of it.
Naturally very rarely display results are just correspondent to the sum of every single player distinct results as it's quite difficult to get "humanly" easily and long detectable patterns.

If poker is a game of imperfect informations, bac will be a lot more on that issue, but yet one side must win no matter what. Not forgetting that balancement is just a virtual accomplishment to get.

Example,

Say we think that next hand will be B and most players are betting B.
Now I want to assess if majority of side players are winners or losers.
Say most part of players are losers or heavy losers. I won't bet B, I won't bet anything.
I could be right or wrong but the overall probability is slightly oriented to get a loss.

Now say that the previous hand was a loss, we have no indications on which side to wager and most players bet one side. What to do?

Even if we could be trapped in the middle of a losing streak, I would follow the majority of players. Thet is players who  had lost the previous hand so probability to get a winning hand for them is slightly endorsed.

I mean that it's quite difficult to find spots where every player at the table is wrong or right, besides very rare situations when the shoe is very polarized.

Imo, our task should be to spot the situations where 0 goes to  1 or viceversa or at most where 1 goes to 2 or 2 to 1. The rest is pure randomness.

What do you think?

as.

 


 

 






 

I'm a strict objective statistical results lover but our bac earnings had gotten a huge increase by additionally adopting the suggestions you have posted here.
And I'm talking very seriously.

It's about 6 months I've chosen to mentor a couple of very high stakes players and so far we haven't experienced one single losing session.
To the point that in one occasion floormen stand behind us to ascertain we were not applying an edge sorting strategy.
LOL.

as.




 







 

Besides playing and playing,  the best way to get additional money is to mentor high stakes players and not asking miseries from common people. Otherwise the inventor should share ideas for free. Or write a book. Or simply shut up.
Another option involving celebrity would be to give a lecture at MIT, but more likely than not the listeners would laugh at him/her.

Therefore system sellers are 100% scammers by definition.

Giz provided interesting concepts here but the idea that randomness involving perfect independent events might be controlled is totally unacceptable.

To win at games we need to find spots where probability values change. And to do that we absolutely need finite dependent events, that is games of cards.

Roulette can only be beaten by defects of production (biased wheels or biased software).

as.   

Quote from: alrelax on September 06, 2018, 12:39:30 AM
When I was younger especially in Atlantic City and up in Connecticut had no idea what the casino hosts were doing in actuality. But they got that 4 hour minimum with those average bets for the room food beverage and incidentals for the higher line players and there's a reason why they do that!! 

But there's a lot more than that, they do. Of course we know all that now many years later but what they do is very good and they're very good at how they keep players there.

Yeah!

You kept stressing about the importance to play wisely and actually and without any doubt this site is the only one to provide meaningful insights about how to reduce the house edge, to say the least.


as. 

Quote from: alrelax on September 06, 2018, 12:07:57 AM
I have witnessed numerous people win hundreds of thousands of dollars in short periods of sections like 8 to 15 hands and I've seen those same people almost every one of them give it back over 1 to 4  shoes, because they couldn't repeat what they just did. 

I've seen it way too much!

Exactly.

You have to win very few to stay alive at this game, imo.

That's why casinos entice players to wager every hand.

as.

No need to think.

Average distributions will take care of it.

People who make a living at baccarat want to wager very few hands.

as.

Quote from: Lugi on August 04, 2018, 09:34:20 PM
Series 1 = 50% of the time (yes I know, anything can and will happen & results are not evenly distributed in the short term, so please spare me all that).  Streaks of 2 = 25%, streaks of 3 = 12.5%, streaks of 4's = 6.5%, streaks of 5 = 3.25% and so on.

Taking for grant that baccarat is a 50/50 game (and of course it isn't) , streaks of 4s have a 6.25% probability to appear and not 6.5%. The same about streaks of 5s.
Itlr a 0.25% difference means a lot. 

as.

Quote from: alrelax on July 30, 2018, 10:44:09 PM
Exactly why I adhere to and look for 'sections with their turning points' to do exactly like what AsymBAC is referring to. 

Referring to trying to catch the time between the unbalanced and the balanced, or attempting to catch the balancing or equaling or the deficit of it.

+1000
This concept is of paramount importance, no matter what strategy we are employing.
Pretend to be a bj player: most of the times you are unfavorite, sometimes you are favorite but things can change dramatically in very few hands in a way (mostly negative) or another.

it's time to set up a team, Glen.

 
as. 

Good points Al.

If I can't win mathematically, I want to get all the possible weapons to be at my side.
Statistics, actual outcomes, flow of the W/L players at the table, everything.

There's no fkn way that strong winning players are going to give back the entire amount won on the actual shoe because of the possibility they'll get the same amount of losing situations on the same shoe. Maybe they are wrong to set up their bets, not the percentage of W/L decisions. 
Not mentioning strong losing players.

At the same time  and conversely taken the concept, more often than not shoes containing multiple winning TIES or other winning side bets aren't going to give back the money won on the same shoe.

That is that shoes NOT forming multiple winning situations must discarded from our play.
At every negative edge game, we must hope to get solely one situation: winning clusters.

We do not want to chase a losing situation unless it would be strongly deviated to our side.
For example, after 60 or more hands and zero or just 1 TIE had happened, betting TIE would be a sensible option. We'll lose 20 or so bets in the effort at worst.

Same about ties not coming out consecutively or 1-hand gapped for 50-60 single tie hands.
In this instance, a progression can get the best of it despite the rarity of such target.
Notice that we are going to bet after an event searched had happened.

as. 

Good post, Giz.

Every baccarat gambler will hope to get favourable coincidences.
He bet A or B hoping to get multiple As or Bs or to hope that his careful strategic plan will be always appropriate to the actual conditions.
That's not possible.

The coincidental/non coincidental world comes out randomly but  it is quite unbalanced on short terms and of course is going to be very slight balanced on long terms.
Therefore a strategic plan oriented to get a balancement will bring us to a sure failure, especially if we are not taking care of the actual conditions we are meeting.

At the same time, a stubbornly strategic plan directed to find endless unbalancements on every pattern we cross is going to get the same failure unless we try to know the possible factors that are leading to this.

as.   

Moreover, a quite low probability is supposed to show up either very rarely or in clusters (meaning by lower gaps than what expected probability dictates, frequently by very strict gaps)

Almost never a  rare event is supposed to show up by the perfect general probability pace.

Do not forget that a rare event must catch up a possible deficit by getting a higher frequency on single shoes or conversely diluting a high past frequency registered on multiple shoes.

The expected EV is always the same (-14%) still the ACTUAL variance is very very high for obvious reasons.
Sooner or later some mathematical situations promting ties will arise, and there's no way that a given event will come out more often than not without showing up at least once.   

as.

 




 

Quote from: Albalaha on June 28, 2018, 08:01:19 AM
House edge is a big evil and when it is tough to beat approx 1% edge of banker or player(rather considered impossible), thinking of beating a 14x house edge could be closer to insanity. I have worked upon tie bet for a very long time with no success. Why would one go for such bets with super heavy burden?

Well, a deck particularly rich of even cards will greatly enlarge the probability to get ties, for example.
Not mentioning that the percentage of 4/5/6 cards employed to form each hand follows some controllable variance lines.

When the 5 cards/ 4 or 6 cards forming hand ratio has reached very high values, it's time to bet ties.

as. 

Yes, but a large part of the possible results are equivalent in terms of outcomes.

Of course the baccarat player wouldn't want to know what precisely happens for each hand, just the distribution of the results.

For example, the probability to get two shoes in a row not forming at least a couple of  P singles in a row is almost not existent. The same about not having a Banker streak of at least 3 and so on.

Each shoe is just a minuscule part of the entire picture. No one bj player would expect to get a possible mathematical advantage per every shoe played (such probability is just around 12-13%), why a baccarat player should expect or find favourable situations per every shoe played?

as.