KungFu, When I am playing and the wins come quick and consistent, I admit, I push aside all MMM protocols I have.  I stack it up, hit them hard and keep winning. 

When it slows down and I start losing say, 2 out of 3 or 3 out of 4, then I totally forget my win, I play my 'normal' again and employ my MMM which would be 1/3rd, 1/3rd, 1/3rd. 

Then I lock up my total buy in.  Then I lock up 2/3rds of my win.  I will continue with what is left.  Whatever happens, happens.  If I lose whatever I had on the table in and above my buy-in and the locked up 2/3rds win, end and go home.  If I win again, then my MMM comes into play once again.

But unlike the highest majority of all players, my original buy-in and at least 2/3rds of my win I had, is not going to be given back to the rack!

For myself, there is no other way.

"...BTC will stay and get stronger... Those predicting that it will not last should learn from BlackRock.. ."


BTC at 69,500 today 4/1/24. I think its been up or down a couple K in past 24 hours.

I agree it will stay and be around for awhile(Until the next big thing). So are tulips and beanie babies. In fact, I gave my neighbor approx half of the tulips from one of our flower beds after they complemented them. I probably received them free 20years ago or maybe paid $3-5 at Lowes Home Supply. But yes indeed tulips are still around. So are beanie babies as I recently saw a bin of them for $3 each at a local antique store.

BTC is nothing like it was defined in its initial White Papers in 2008--2009. So just because they keep changing what it is and will become doesn't mean the folks 14 years ago were correct.

The tenets from its origin papers are easily refuted. So the BTC we are seeing today in its current state is largely due to great marketing and a cultish type following that is now coupled with a financial instrument.
BTC most resembles a commodity/ most certainly is not and will not be a currency unless it continues to evolve. Which then makes it NOT the bitcoin from its origin. Thus far I have not seen anything transacted with bitcoin(unless very recently). Items are transacted in dollars and then translated into bitcoins.
In fact, if we really needed a new way to do electronic payments doing so with Apple shares (ApplBit)would have been significantly more efficient. Far more people owned Apple stock and if a large enough audience bought (AppleBit) they would have incentives to also buy Apple products (Iphones, Ipads,..ets) to directly increase the value of AppleBit. If one owns BTC ones only hope is to sell it to someone else for more.


I recently observed a clip from a talk show host on CNBC and after the guest pointed out that BTC had drifted so far from its original tenets and had no characteristics of a currency. The CNBC host (without hesitation) immediately states: "well that's what makes BTC such a unique currency is that it has the ability to "evolve" like no other currency ever in our history". The guest almost burst out laughing but quickly tried not to scoff at the host/ the CNBC host even had to hide his own laugh as he knew what he just said was BS.

The original claims such as total anonymity, government can't ever see what you're doing, can't be hacked, well if u get hacked u should have put your holdings in a hot wallet--OR cold wallet, transactions are free, transactions are fast,....etc.

IMO the recent ETFs (and the fees collected by exchanges/investment Co such as Blackrock) will keep BTC alive for many years as they are making a killing on these new ETF fees. Today's stock market is much like a casino. IMO the casino gives one a less manipulated market if one plays low H.E. games such as Bac.

The following in part from Investopedia:

What Changed Since 2008 and 2009?

Bitcoin's lifespan contains an enormous history of ups and downs, both in terms of its dollar price as well as its development and support. For an idea that started as an anonymous research paper, its reputation and large market capitalization are astounding. To enjoy these accomplishments, Bitcoin had to endure several diversions from its original white paper:

Mining centralization:
Bitcoin's popularity drove its price up, which made mining very lucrative. Though the network is designed to be decentralized, those with enough money built large mining facilities in areas that subsidize electricity, thereby concentrating an important source of Bitcoin's power into the hands of a few.

Incentives:
Part six of the white paper outlines the rewards to miners, but even the largest are not immune to market forces. Mining Bitcoin gets progressively harder as the network grows, and so eventually, mining it en masse requires a lot of hardware, electricity, and cooling. This creates a breakeven point for mining, which is a factor that was not anticipated in the white paper.

Blockchain's size:
Part seven of the white paper is about keeping blockchain's size at a minimum, and so far, it's done a decent job. However, at around 558 GB as of March 23, 2024, it is a significant storage burden.
15
Blockchain.com. "Blockchain Size (MB)."

Privacy:
Satoshi illustrates his vision for private transactions in part 10, but Bitcoin is now only private for those who take great caution to ensure their anonymity. Most Bitcoin is now traded between centralized exchanges that require identification (and occasionally bank account verification), so it is not difficult to trace to whom it belongs or where it is going. Bitcoin's speculation-fueled popularity put it in the spotlight of government and central banks long ago. Though people understand institutional finance cannot ever destroy Bitcoin entirely, at this point, it is as much a part of Bitcoin as regular users are.

Speed and Fees:
Bitcoin's core development team has made changes to its code over time to address problems with transaction speeds and costs. They have altered the size of blocks being verified and opened up pathways for integration with off-chain solutions like the Lightning Network. Whether these side chains or second-layer solutions will pay off in the long run remains to be seen.


Just my quick thoughts/opinions as I skim the forum late at night.

More later/ Best of luck to all bitcoiners,

"...On the 8th hand was the first F7.  Had 2 three card 9-0s in the bankers favor for wins on the dragon bonus as well.  The next section produced more F7s, three card 8-0s and three card 9-0s in the bankers favor as well.  A quick $20k or so, wagering $200-500 most hands, $50 on Dragons and $25 on F7s.  ..."

Great cash extraction.

"...And the highest majority of all winning patrons, unfortunately give it back to the casino in pursuit of larger and greater wins. ..."[/i]

     that's what I often see at the tables.

IMO we all win and we all lose at times. Generally speaking the long-term winners don't play with emotion. Meaning they don't get too overly excited with big wins. Baccarat can humble one very rapidly so I find it best not to think too highly of my skill set after a huge win or string of big wins.
Similar to when a bad shoe gives us a big L. We shouldn't dwell on that too much either.

Just my opinion.


Good post.

There are several ways to lose but there's only way to consistently win: That is being able to take advantage of the most likely winning/losing sequences the game infinitely provides, at the same time trying to get the lowest damage caused by unlikely events.

Since the HE constantly burden on us, long positive (unlikely) sequences should be considered as less important than long negative (unlikely) sequences, even though we've found a kind of an edge by spotting that some events are slight more likely than others.

To cut a long story short, it's way better to let it go a possible long positive sequence than trying to chase long negative successions to stop after they have surpassed a cutoff point of interest.

Thus even if you've ascertained and measured that after long trials in some circumstances A+B>C or that C<A+B (or consecutive C+C...<A+B), you need some time to exploit such propensities as each new shoe is a world apart.

Average shoe's texture

Mathematically speaking casinos get the advantage of a sure edge we can't do anything about, but casinos get a way greater advantage by exploiting a so called "statistical" edge, meaning that the vast majority of shoes dealt belong to the 'average' category, so forming low or moderate deviations of any shape and we well know that the main strategy of almost any bac player in the world is directed to get moderate/long deviations of some kind.

On the other end, some players do not properly take into account that at some shoes the "deviation" negative feature could last for long, forgetting that average shoes (negating any kind of substantial deviation) are more likely to come out only after a fair amount of shoes dealt.

Summarizing, casinos know very well that the vast majority of outcomes belong to an "average" category where most players will lose and whenever an unlikely strong deviation of any kind will happen, they are happy no matter what: Either that deviation will form a players' positive (wrong and temporary) enforcement or they simply let the results go in the wrong direction for long devastating the bankrolls of people thinking that things must change at the actual shoe they're playing at.

That's the reason why our algos mirror (by a opposite way) this casinos' "hope":

a-Not giving a damn about strong deviations at either side of the operations;

b-Getting the best of a more likely "average" world.

Both those points could be practically resolved by a simple clustering effect working or not at the actual shoe we're playing at.
 
Since A+B sequences must be 3:1 more likely than C event, we'll expect to get more clustered A/B sequences than A/B isolated sequences. We won't be interested about their lenght, just about their clustering probability to happen and this will be always overwhelming shifted toward the A/B side.

On the other end, C events should be more likely to come out isolated than clustered, but (as already stated here) itlr and without the use of a proper random walk, C clustered events will be equal to the C isolated events.
Yet things will change a lot whenever we start to consider the back-to-back C probability vs the C-A/B probability.
So C-C-C< C-C- A/B.
A propensity magnified by the use of a given random walk, always knowing that to get an A/B cluster of any distribution we need the appearance of either an A or B event.

See you in a couple of days.

as. 

It was an astonishingly beautiful shoe for those that played the banker and stuck with it. Setting aside that nasty 'cut' and has to go back to '50-50' type of belief. And believe me, there was a tremendous amount of verbal stupidity going on at the shoe by people with that mentality.

Players was only producing a single win each time for eight times.  I snapped the picture at hand 23. After the 4th single player was made.  What happened after this, was almost a replica of what you see here in the picture up to hand 40 something, a bit more than the entire first half of the shoe.

On the 8th hand was the first F7.  Had 2 three card 9-0s in the bankers favor for wins on the dragon bonus as well.  The next section produced more F7s, three card 8-0s and three card 9-0s in the bankers favor as well.  A quick $20k or so, wagering $200-500 most hands and more on others, $50 on Dragons and $25 on F7s.

There are so many emotional factors that are mixed in a Baccarat Players decision making process, most do not understand or know the proper way to deal with them. But when shoes happen the way this one did, it very seldom hurts the casino because most all baccarat players either cannot believe it is happening or they are scared to wager the right way with large bets and capitalize on it.  And the highest majority of all winning patrons, unfortunately give it back to the casino in pursuit of larger and greater wins. 

When it is there and you are on it, you have to set aside all the variations, strategies and allow yourself to win and win handsomely.

Yes, not all shoes will produce what you see below in the picture. But, when it is there-it is there. That happens quite often in the game of baccarat, you just have to be open enough to allow yourself to see it.

In order to catch the 'Now Vs. Now', you have to forget about the 'Before Vs. Now' at the table. If you do not, you will always-always-always give back your winnings along with your buy-in and most likely your bank roll if you keep playing that way.  Or, you will not capture an easy and quick 20-30-40 times your buy-in.

As I figured, later in the evening after I left the casino, I got a few phone calls.  Most all that did win stayed and gave it right back in their pursuit of larger and continuous winning. 

Without a solid MMM and knowing how to color up, stop and reset, you will have the fight of your life to hang on to any kind of bankroll let alone profits.

KFB wrote:

It is my belief we are better off trying to handle a predetermined level of (-)Variance.

That's the key point.

More later

as.

Pi has been accepted by over 100 million users called pioneers and has over 50 millions active members. Over 2 billion coins have been mined and a large chunk of that lies (almost one third) with developers.The total coins will be 100 billions over a very long span and gradually the mining will get tougher and tougher
   Price of any such currency depends upon the level of acceptance and Pi has started better than any other crypto had ever done and no such coin ever had so much acceptance worldwide in prelaunch stage.
  It has two shortcomings, so far I can see now. First It is absolutely free and those pioneers who have been mining for years have amassed a huge pile. So, people will rush to get free money in early trading days that will make its price go as low as few cents to begin with.
 Secondly, having too many coins in circulation could create deflation type situation in its early years in its ecosystem. Pi has countermeasures to control these, in beginning.
 I believe that when it gets at trading stage, there will be no referral benefits and mining will yield negligible coins.Then it's prices will rise rapidly getting past $100, in a few years.

Asym in post #1016 above:

"...But only a small portion of them know that in order to win itlr one must realize that only a huge bankroll could cover the vast majority of negative fluctuations the game will provide, at the same time aiming for a relatively small profit per every session played..."

I agree 100%.
It is my opinion one should not seek to develop a holy grail that wins all shoes. We would simply be forced to utilize such a small bet size to buyin ratio. The wins wouldn't really "move the needle" as far as a % of the overall bankroll. Plus we would still have at least a small probability to bust.

It is my belief we are better off trying to handle a predetermined level of (-)Variance. Allow just enough buyin size(dependant on one's own hit rate) so we will still be in the game after the inevitable rough patches. Give ourselves a statistically and realistic opportunity and accept when it's not there. On the shoes we do indeed bust our buyin we should remind ourselves it can only lose down to (0). As long as we don't rebuy into that same bad shoe.

My preference is to utilize a pos progression so we win more when we see that same Variance as (+). Hopefully significantly more on the W streaks/shoes.



Continued Success To All,

"When a gambler picks up a pack of cards or a pair of dice, he feels as though he has reduced an unmanageable world to a finite, visible and comprehensive size."

                                                        – Annabel Davis-Goff

Was not preaching or attempting to make strategy out of a, 'Come on give me something move'. 

H-Money has also been there and done it plenty.  He grinds and comes back, he grinds and loses as well.

And he almost always believes he can win more and more, just play longer.  He almost never employs a solid MMM.

But when it's there, you have to be too! If you don't wager, you cannot win.