Actually very high stakes players flat betting the maximum limit are the only ones who are sure to lose the expected, nothing more but very often less as their losses are decurted by a variable percentage not speaking about comps, gifts, etc.

The rest of the players are destined to lose a lot more than the maximum edge of 1.25%....

Yes itlr a $100.000 bet gives $1250 to the casino, but such players might put a huge dent in casino's pockets in case of long positive streaks and players can't do anything worse than be 1.25% disadvantaged in case of negative situations. 

as.



 

Welcome to your new position Glen!

as.

I'm very happy to hear that.

Despite being in strong disagreement with him on some gambling topics, I know for sure Glen is a great, respectful, generous and competent person.
Not forgetting that he played most baccarat shoes than anyone else here and there.

A warm welcome, Glen!

A special thanks goes to Vic that made a hard work to mantain this site alive.

as. 



 

Thanks Al.

Of course I'm not referring to you, but actually I voluntarily made the mistake to say that 5 cards are prompting a tie more than 4 cards to see whether someone wnated to dispute this (correctly).
In reality 5 cards are the worst scenario to get ties.

I agree with you about the general perception of ties any player gets: you won't' think about them unless they had come out very clustered or very dispersed (or nothing at all up to a point).

as.

Glen the new owner? Really?

as.

Ok.
I'm going to sell a foolproof bac method for $1 million (10% going to this site).

Anyone interested?



as.

A bac player betting TIES is considered the worst player in the universe, right?
After all such player is wagering with a more than -14% negative edge.

Nonetheless, ties must come out at an average rate of 1 tie over 10.52 hands (9.5%) and they are payed just 8 to 1.

Therefore itlr wagering every hand will produce a more than -14% return on the money wagered.
And, for that matter, no one progression in the world could overcome such negative ratio.

Good.

Now let's consider a large amount of shoes accounting the average amount of ties per every shoe. No surprises, It's still 9.5%.

But let's take the average distribution of ties per every distinct portion of any shoe and things will change.

Say that we would only bet the tie after 50 or more hands are dealt and just up to a couple of  ties had shown up.
Now we are reducing our negative edge as shoes not displaying more than 2 ties after 50 hands are more likely to produce ties on subsequent hands on the same shoe.

But wait.

Ties are more likely to come out if many cards are employed to form B and P hands.
I mean that ties are more likely to come out if 6 or, at a very lesser degree, 5 cards are employed to form hands.
Of course 4 cards may form ties, but at a very lower degree.

Thus the more likely occurence to get multiple ties is proportionally formed by 6, 5 or 4 cards in descending order.

The result is that we'll get more back to back ties or ties interspersed by a better 9.5% ratio whenever hands are formed by a huge amount of cards.

Since a tie is a mathematical effect event, we know that card distribution is a decisive matter to get those ties, meaning that we'll get more ties anytime few naturals are coming out as they are totally denying the use of a third or fourth card.

By this perspective now we have a new plan to consider whether ties are more likely to come out or not.
Actually some shoes are providing a lot of 5 or 6 cards situations to form any resolved hand, so enlarging the probability to get ties.
Other shoes do not provide such feature, meaning that the vast majority of hands are formed by 4 or 5 cards at most.

The practical effect may be taken by several angles:

- for example, a deck full of 8s and 9s and plenty of 10 value cards are not good to bet ties for obvious reasons.

- to get a 5 or 6 cards hand, we need the Player side to draw first, then the banker to stay or draw, possibly to draw anyway.

- the most likely occurence to get a back to back tie or to get a tie by a higher probability than expected is whenever the first tie hand was formed by 6 cards. Conversely, any 6 card hand not producing a tie must be considered as a kind of "missed" probability.
The same when an asymmetrical hand favored the player and not the banker.

- itlr, baccarat hands are formed by a constant number of cards, thus we shouldn't care less about which side will win, just the probability to get such ties.

In a word, whenever we think the future hand will be formed by 5 or, well better, 6 cards, we'll get a meaningful edge to bet ties.

as. 






 




 










   

Thanks Al, I'm very glad you remain here! ;-)

as.

Of course you are right, Alba.
And many replies are accurate, imo.

Providing a zero or a very low negative edge, our main enemy will be the variance that most players try to "control" by worthless methods.

My opinion is that even a part of BJ counters will get the best of it because they increase their wagers JUST on 12-13% of the total hands dealt (that is the average number when a positive count will arise itlr) and only for few hands after their trigger arises.
Nonetheless, even most successful Bj counters may be losing for weeks despite their 2-2.5% (at best) mathematical advantage.

The proof is that casinos will confide on extra mathematical factors is reading their annual records: profits are 12-15% of the total money wagered at their baccarat tables, for example.
That is 10-12 times more than expected by simple math.

Casinos advantages:

- math edge
- infinite bankroll vs limite players' bankrolls
- betting limits
- no emotions involved as they know the final positive outcome

Possible players advantages:

- selecting at most the situations to bet
- adapting a proper MM knowing that losing sessions or losing weeks are inevitable as a strategic plan can only get the best of it in a very diluted fashion. The same is true for casinos which may stay losers for long.

We can't alter the casinos advantages, just working on our possible advantages.

as.

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.

Quote from: soxfan on May 31, 2018, 08:09:13 PM
Time for the Guinness and cashew. BTW, I have posted up my style of play on here, hey hey.

Where?

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.