Quote from: AsymBacGuy on November 15, 2018, 11:29:43 PM
Hi BTW!

Transform your betting plan into a guessing of when Player side won't get a drawing hand.
Most of the time you'll get a drawing hand and even if could be winning you are a long term loser.

Your new aim is to guess when player will get a standing or natural point, both situations overwhelmed favorite to win. Itlr.

Therefore build a new 2 columns chart having S on left part and D on right part. Write the results (not the actual winning results) on such columns.
Do this per every shoe played.
Forget what really happens and forget what happens on Banker side.

Take care instead of what happened in the previous shoes at the same location.

Odds are that you'll get more isolated S than D and more D clusters than S clusters.
But the probability to get S or D is not so heavily shifted toward D and to get a kind of balancement along the way you must get some S streaks.
Of course when you think that a given S will be followed by a D bet banker, you can't be hugely wrong, actually you are slightly favorite.

as.

"Take care instead of what happened in the previous shoes at the same location."  This bothers me.  I've done quite a bit of shuffle tracking back in my BJ days.  Okay, there's not a player cut in Baccarat anymore which would change the shoe order from one shoe to the next but . . .

Have you actually tracked live shoes by, say, half deck to see how the composition of low/high cards extended from one same color shoe to the next (1,3,5,7)?

How do you back up this claim?

I've been away a lot last year and a half so I missed this thread and never heard of this guy.  But what's wrong with sunshine?  Don't you think people should be able to endorse gambling systems?  How about a special section for system sellers?

There's always people around who will test these things out and there's always those who will buy them.  Don't forget that most buy these systems not caring whether they work or not!    If the claims are false (usually are) the light of day will expose the flaws.

Personally, I don't buy stuff but I do like to get them for free!  Thanks Sputnik, I'll put yet another system in my file.   

Quote from: alrelax on November 12, 2018, 11:09:28 PM
"Negative Progressions and Negative Frame-of-Mind (2 of 10 in a Series)
                                                 
I am putting down my thoughts . . .

My analogy to this is a vehicle repair garage with numerous employees.  There is one guy, say in a group of 20 that is always inciting worker's rights and how to do everything his way, not the owner's way, etc.  Fire the guy, point blank get rid of him or put him on landscaping and washing vehicles until he quits.  I would take the firing route even with repercussions of penalties and taxed surcharges for firing some states have.  I would just eat it and be done with him.  Costs me more in others non confirmatory and loss profits, etc.  I would look to make it up on positive ways without the guy, not keeping him and dealing with negativity, losses and the such.  Kind of the same at gambling where you have to win so many to make up a loss and the frame of mind it gets most everyone into.  Moral=Take the loss, make it up later, don't shoot for the absolute immediate to become whole for the past negatives.

But, maybe I am totally wrong here and my way of thinking???".............................................

Ya maybe that guy gonna stick around and organize the workers and get them to join the Teamsters; go on strike and break the back of the exploiters?
**********************
RE:progressions.  Maybe a difficulty you have is to understand that progressions don't have to be static; in a straight line from 1 -  . . .  Reducing escalation to limit losses even if not recouping all losses as your moral suggests.  Most good progressions incorporate such.

Quote from: Bally6354 on November 12, 2018, 03:03:11 PM
Just touching on the LIAR.

Here is a shoe.... P121311221121113111134121211114.

Here are my bets in sections.

Section 1.
W
W* no bet
L no bet

Section 2.
W
L no bet

Section 3.
W
W* no bet
W* no bet
W* no bet

Section 4.
L no bet

Section 5.
W
W* no bet
W* no bet
W* no bet
L no bet

If I bet everything, I am +6. By just taking one bite at the cherry, I am +4. Is there really that much difference when I can flat-bet and still win. Well, not in my opinion.  Because what about the day when you don't get those runs of 3/4. On saying that, this shoe was pretty smooth. You can develop framework for when shoes shoot all over the place and bet accordingly but the key IMO is keeping those LIAR down to as low a figure as you can and also not forgetting that less is more in relation to how many bets you actually place.

cheers

I can't follow this cause I don't know what your sections are.  I thought you were waiting for 3 B's but nope.

Luigi, I'm starting to understand what you mean by combinations since you invoked Birthday Paradox.  You're not D. E. are you?

I was looking at some of his writings and methods based on Birthday Paradox and also some of Dr. Tom's stuff, which like some others, attempts to break down the B and P outcomes from a whole different perspective.  One such one from my old friend and partner was Ultimate Baccarat where he interpreted the B and P as OTBL ("O's") and TBL ("S's").  When one gets into permutations of sets there is a math based outcome that can be exploited with appropriate MM.

J

Quote from: alrelax on November 11, 2018, 04:52:50 PM
and everybody that's played for decades will tell you,

What's funny is I play similar to you - I guess too.  The difference may be that I will start with a regimen and if winning will stay with it until it breaks down.  When it does I will either quit winner OR guess FTS to recoup if it din't pan out from the get go . . .like that.

Maybe you'll ban me again . . .fine . . . but the arrogance of that statement which I quoted above is just too much for me to ignore.  Very "trumpian."  Glen, there is absolutely no evidence that "everybody" is of the same opinion.  Yet in one sentence you have relegated anyone who might disagree to insignificance. 

Quote from: Bally6354 on November 11, 2018, 05:53:48 PM
Less is more when considering how to cut down on LIAR. I prefer to go for one bite of the cherry and take the win or loss. Attempting to ride a run guarantees you are going to end on a loss. Personally, I wouldn't contemplate looking for or betting on weaker triggers when a specific bet placement in whatever shape it arrives is a strong one. Then again, it could get pretty damn boring sitting there twiddling your thumbs for most of the shoe. Luckily Genting have these terminals which are linked to the live dealer now similar to their linked roulette tables. You don't feel as awkward sitting there waiting for a bet.

LOL.  Yeah, can feel pretty unintelligent watching a 12IAR go by while everyone is taking in the rack BUT. . . also LOL; we find most times everyone else is doing the same!

I don't think Luigi is looking at following P/B runs as we normally understand them.  But yeah, one bite makes sense however I think it will take a few bites.

J

Quote from: Lugi on November 10, 2018, 02:55:36 AM
I'm just winding down after a successful jaunt at the tables. "No mechanical system can beat Baccarat" I am confidently going to disagree with you over this one.  Early days at the moment, fairly confident I've got the better of this game.

At this point it do well to mention number of trials in order to qualify what "early days" means.  By using this phrase one would assume there is not even a modicum of trials for one to take the claim that you "got the better" seriously.

QuoteIt's only taken a decade trials, tribulations and some losses on the way. Yes I know it is a bold statement, however having dabbled with a math based approach over the last month, this is the strongest methodology I've produced in close on 15 years of study of this bloody frustrating game.

This does not mean I can predict any single winning hand, otherwise I would go "all in".  My approach has always been to control the LIARs, for me to lose 4 in a row is rare.  Yes 4LAIR, is an extremely rare event.  Occasionally I do see it, say once per session, 6~8 shoes, even if it happened twice, it is no sweat, merely a buggeration factor.

Yes, changing the W/L registry would certainly be the holy grail.  As it is the expected LIAR for 4LIAR is about 2.3 occurrences per 75 hands.  This regardless whether you use closed shoe or continue to next.

Quote

Downside, is not enough betting opportunities per shoe, so I'm having to introduce other triggers which are not as robust.   Where I play, they burn cards at the start of a shoe and cut a whole deck at the back cos' they are paranoia fcukwits about the likes of John May counting the super egalite Fortune 8 side-bet, so I'm only getting on average 65~70 hands per shoe.

"other triggers"  ??  The word "trigger" condors up a specific occurrence which then suggests some pattern which can be defined even though you insist not a pattern . . everything has a pattern regardless of the frequency.  Remember the title 1 Million Random Numbers and Their Normal Deviates?  there's always patterns.  So then you apparently have several of these patterns which ocurr infrequently but each trigger has its own win % no doubt?  Have you determined the different math advantage?

QuoteIf I could get close to 80 hands then I could unequivocally state the game is well and truly beat, as a shoe would have to defy mathematical odds of 512/1  'after a trigger' presents itself for a short series of 50/50 propositions, it simply doesn't happen, however always remains possible. 

It is so rare, you could play for literally months and you'll never see it, alas I am having to make do with the 256/1 iteration, which also is strong, but have a gut feeling the '512' version would be unbeatable, as well as possibly being unplayable as a stand-a-lone method, you need to introduce other triggers to maintain game interest. 

As always MM is paramount, because it is based on winning a bet within a series of bets, plus you just never know!!!   YES, it is 100% mechanical, it has no bearing on what the shoe is doing or what pattern has transpired or might transpire.  It is based on  treating Banker and Player results like binary outcomes and applying combinatorial probability.....

Don't need much MM if you can keep LIAR to 4 !!

I'm confused here.  Are you saying the "combinatorial probability" only occurs every few  months?  Binary outcomes sounds like patterns to me.  How about Baccarat Code or Baccarat Pairs, both of which use computational probability to predict (read guess).

J

IMO, reason people don't share is because they can't.  They don't have a definable method.  Whatever they do is subjective even if, like me, they have a base structure to start.

I'm not buying that there are definable winning methods that are held secret.  Humans can't keep secrets!  LOL  These methods would be spread around in a fairly short period of time.

Quote from: Eight Iron on November 06, 2018, 09:05:43 AM
Yeah, I got the picture.

You want me to tell you how I do it.

I analyzed nearly one-hundred different flat bet variations over more than 1,000 shoes, before I settled on the one I currently use. 

After all that work, why would I tell anyone how I play?

I posted my numbers to show flat betting can win units, and discourage people from wasting their bankrolls progression betting.   My previous posts show FTP, and Banker Only can be effective flat bet strategies.

I did add something to the discussion, but you were not listening.

�Stay away from progressions and cancellation systems.�

Millions of players have been using them for the past 100 years.  If even one of them worked, the game would no longer exist.

Wannabes are the ones who waste their time and bust their bankrolls over and over on that nonsense.

There is never a mathematical reason to use a progression in Baccarat.

Not quite true.  Using progressions will ultimately have the exact same winning as flat betting the average bet size (ABS) of the progression utilized.  So if one can win flat betting one will also win with progressions.  Of course one must consider available bankroll, table limits and variance.  The advantage of progressions vs. flat betting is to win greater % of shoes.
*************************

60 units in 10 months?  That's not a lot but still a win is a win.  I'm not knocking it.  It would be helpful if you were to state how many bets per shoe and units won per shoe on average.  Stuff like that.  Surely that wouldn't be giving anything away.

Lots of questions.  Maybe the following too simplistic but what made forums so popular in my opinion was the easily disseminated defined rule based systems that proliferated.  Humans like order and learning defined methodologies.  As gamblers began finally realizing that these are essentially betting and guessing games many gave up.  The ones that stayed and played developed their own strategies which don't have a lot in common with what is discussed on these boards.

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on October 07, 2018, 11:06:34 PM
BTW, it's time to put in practice for BS members what I've been stressing here and there for years.

Let me know when you can join me in Vegas and you'll get an idea what I'm talking about.
I'll take any side action, obviously for free.

If you'll lose after a coup,le of sessions, I'll promptly cancel my name here and there.
Of course it won't' be the case. :-)

as.

The P 12 concept beginning to break down.  Admittedly my small hand test of live shoes not a good example. Still have a .49 u/shoe net win.  So I was curious since you ran significant number of trials what your flat bet net win is.   And I found the second bet after the first loss to be a net loss.

The LIAR continuing shoe to shoe were the expected "half as much."  So 20 2LIAR , 10 3LIAR, 5 4LIAR, etc.  I always consider the LIAR category a "tell" that the method is in line with the EV.

 

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. 

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on October 07, 2018, 10:50:54 PM
Ok with your points Al.

But we ought to remember that the probability that properly dissected patterns happened in the previous shoe will repeat in the same position and in the next shoe are virtually zero. Let's safely say zero point zero.
This is a good starting point, imo.

as.

Virtually yes but it will happen.  I've seen this concept and have played it some in the past.  I don't know what "properly dissected patterns" means.  Best to pick a pattern that is less common than others.  But it has to be a series of decisions and I'm not sure if betting 12 will suffice.

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