Our members are dedicated to PASSION and PURPOSE without drama!

Recent posts

#41
Off-topic / Re: Photo Ops
Last post by alrelax - March 16, 2024, 01:26:04 AM
Anyone like these?

#42
Alrelax's Blog / Fred Smith&Fed EX Almost Broke...
Last post by alrelax - March 15, 2024, 06:56:57 PM
I wrote about it before and I think it's just simply amazing how Fred Smith kept this company alive for one more week to cover his fuel bills, that led him to $5.8 billion dollars net worth as of this year. Which included taking $5,000.00 to Caesars palace in Las Vegas and winning $27,000.00 to cover a week's extra business life!

Quote from a magazine; "I asked Fred where the funds had come from, and he responded, 'The meeting with the General Dynamics board was a bust and I knew we needed money for Monday, so I took a plane to Las Vegas and won $27,000.' I said, 'You mean you took our last $5,000-- how could you do that?' He shrugged his shoulders and said, 'What difference does it make? Without the funds for the fuel companies, we couldn't have flown anyway.' Fred's luck held again. It was not much, but it came at a critical time and kept us in business for another week."

FROM WIKI:

In 1970, Smith purchased the controlling interest in an aircraft maintenance company, Ark Aviation Sales,[5] and by 1971 turned its focus to trading used jets. On June 18, 1971, Smith founded Federal Express with his $4 million inheritance (approximately $29.8 million in 2023 dollars)[17] and raised $91 million (approximately $690 million in 2023 dollars)[17] in venture capital. In 1973, the company began offering service to 25 cities, and it began with small packages and documents and a fleet of 14 Falcon 20 (DA-20) jets. His focus was on developing an integrated air-ground system. Smith developed FedEx on the business idea of a shipment version of a bank clearing house where one bank clearing house was located in the middle of the representative banks and all their representatives would be sent to the central location to exchange materials.[5]

In the early days of FedEx, Smith had to go to great lengths to keep the company afloat. In one instance, after a crucial business loan was denied, he took the company's last $5,000 to Las Vegas and won $27,000 gambling on blackjack to cover the company's $24,000 fuel bill. It kept FedEx alive for one more week.[18]

In 2003 Smith, along with Robert Rothman and Dwight Schar, purchased a minority share of the Washington Commanders, an American football franchise belonging to the National Football League. The three owned a total of 40% of the team until 2021, when they sold their stake to majority owner Dan Snyder following discontentment with Snyder.[19][20] Smith also owns or co-owns several other entertainment companies, such as Alcon Entertainment.

In 2000, Smith made an appearance as himself in the Tom Hanks movie Cast Away, when Hanks's character is welcomed back, which was filmed on location at FedEx's home facilities in Memphis, Tennessee. A DKE Fraternity Brother of George W. Bush while at Yale, after Bush's 2000 election, there was some speculation that Smith might be appointed to the Bush Cabinet as Defense Secretary.[21] While Smith was Bush's first choice for the position, he declined for medical reasons — Donald Rumsfeld was named instead.[22] Although Smith was friends with both 2004 major candidates, John Kerry and George W. Bush, Smith chose to endorse Bush's re-election in 2004. When Bush decided to replace Rumsfeld, Smith was offered the position again, but he declined in order to spend time with his terminally ill daughter.[23]

Smith was a supporter of Senator John McCain's 2008 Presidential bid, and had been named McCain's national co-chairman of his campaign committee.

Smith was inducted into the Junior Achievement U.S. Business Hall of Fame and also awarded the Golden Plate Award of the American Academy of Achievement in 1998.[24] He was inducted into the SMEI Sales & Marketing Hall of Fame in 2000. His other awards include "CEO of the Year 2004" by Chief Executive Magazine[25] and the 2008 Kellogg Award for Distinguished Leadership, presented by the Kellogg School of Management on May 29, 2008.[26] He was also awarded the 2008 Bower Award for Business Leadership from The Franklin Institute in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[27] He is the 2011 recipient of the Tony Jannus Award for distinguished contributions to commercial aviation.[28]

While CEO of FedEx in 2008, Smith earned a total compensation of $10,434,589, which included a base salary of $1,430,466, a cash bonus of $2,705,000, stocks granted of $0, and options granted of $5,461,575.[29] In June 2009, Smith expressed interest in purchasing the controlling share (60%) of the St. Louis Rams from Chip Rosenbloom and Lucia Rodriguez.[30] In 2009, Smith earned a total compensation of $7,740,658, which included a base salary of $1,355,028, a cash bonus of $0, stocks granted of $0, options granted of $5,079,191, and other compensation totaling $1,306,439.[31]

In March 2014, Fortune Magazine ranked him 26th among the list of the "World's 50 Greatest Leaders".[32]

In March 2022, Smith announced that he would step down as CEO and become executive chairman. He named long-time FedEx executive Raj Subramaniam as his successor.

#43
Off-topic / Re: Photo Ops
Last post by alrelax - March 15, 2024, 03:16:05 PM
Here is one from the other day.  The DeLorean looked and sounded awesome!  9,080 were manufactured. Not many around that are road worthy from what I read.
#44
Off-topic / Re: Photo Ops
Last post by alrelax - March 15, 2024, 03:12:51 PM
This morning.
#45
Baccarat Forum / 7 Fortune 7s Within One Shoe
Last post by alrelax - March 13, 2024, 07:05:59 AM
7 Fortune 7s in this suburb shoe!  :)

F7s at hands:  2-15-46-55-66-70-79.

Look at the start and the finish.  Exact same.
Hands 1-2 and 79-80.  Player-Banker F7.  Banker F7-Player.  First F-7 was players 2 face cards and bankers blackjack, players pull a 6 and bankers pull a 6.  Last F7 was players had a face card and a 10 and bankers a blackjack, players pull a 6 and bankers pull a 6.

Note:  I had a friend that was there and was wagering ($1,000.00) on every 2nd line bet, from the very beginning.  And that was his only wager.  Won 18 and lost 10.  Pocketed a nice $8,000.00 for a bit over 2 hours of time.  Not bad huh?

Note:  Also how every one but one F7 came about on a cut from the players side.

Note:  Also just prior to the 9 banker streak it was 35 players to 24 bankers.  Classic and Consistent Equalization occurred!  Loved that one!
#46
AsymBacGuy / Re: Why bac could be beatable ...
Last post by AsymBacGuy - March 13, 2024, 01:25:14 AM
Numbers refer to double (2) or three (3) streaks, any streak superior than 3 is labeled as S.
Each row is a real dealt shoe when a fair portion of the final end was discarded from the registration.
Patterns are formed by our main mechanical random walk action.
Numbers in brackets at the end of each shoe are "undefined" streaks for a lack of more hands.

S,3,3,3,2,2,2,S,2,3,2,S,2,3,2,S,S,2

2,2,S,3,S,S,S,2,3,2,2,3,2,2,3,S,3

2,2,S,3,3,3,3,2,2,3,2,S,S,3,3,2,S

3,3,S,2,3,2,3,2,3,3,3,S,3,2,2,S,S,(3)

3,2,2,2,S,2,2,3,2,2,2,3,3,3,3,3,S,S,S,2

2,2,2,3,3,3,3,3,2,3,2,2,S,2,2,3,3,2,S

S,3,S,2,2,3,2,2,2,S,S,S,S,2,3,2

S,2,3,2,2,3,3,2,2,2,S,2,2,3,2,S,S

3,S,3,S,2,3,S,2,3,2,3,2,S,S,2,S,(3)

S,3,2,2,2,S,2,2,3,2,2,2,S,2,3,(3)

2,2,2,2,3,2,2,2,2,2,3,2,S,2,S,S

2,2,3,3,S,3,S,2,2,2,2,S,S,2,3,3,2,2,(3)

2,2,S,2,3,3,2,S,3,3,2,S,2,3,S,(3)

2,2,2,2,2,S,2,S,2,2,S,3,3,2

3,3,3,S,S,2,3,2,2,3,S,2,2,2

2,2,2,3,2,2,3,3,2,2,S,S,3,S,S

2.3.2.3.S.2.2.S.2.2.2.2.3.2.2.3.2

2.2.2.2.2.3.3.S.2.3.S.2.3.3.3.2.S

S,3,S,3,3,3,2,S,2,3,2,3,S,(3)

S,3,3,S,3,2,2,2,3,2,3,2,2,3,3,S,2

3,S,S,S,3,S,2,2,2,2,2,S

3,S,S,2,3,2,S,2,S,3,2,2,2,2,3,S,S,(3)

4,3,3,2,2,2,2,S,S,2,S,2,S,2,2,3,S

2,2,2,S,S,S,S,S,3,S,2,2,2,3,2,2,2,(3)

S,3,3,2,S,2,2,3,2,2,2,S,S,2,2

2,S,2,2,2,2,2,2,3,2,2,S,2,2,3,2,2,2,2

2,2,2,S,3,2,2,S,S,S,3,3,S,S,S

2,S,S,S,2,3,2,S,S,2,2,2,S,3,3,S,(3)

S,2,S,3,2,2,S,2,3,2,3,2,2,S,2,3,2

3,3,S,3,3,3,S,3,3,S,S,S,2

2,2,2,2,2,2,3,2,3,2,S,2,2,2,2,3,2,2,2,S

S,3,2,S,3,S,3,2,S,2,S,2,S,2,2

3,S,3,S,2,S,2,2,2,3,S,2,3,2,3,S

2,2,3,2,3,3,2,2,S,2,2,S (7310)

as.
#47
AsymBacGuy / Re: Why bac could be beatable ...
Last post by AsymBacGuy - March 13, 2024, 12:54:55 AM
Thanks Al!

Definitely and as long as the favourable conditions are met, the stop win or stop loss concept shouldn't be implemented in any EV+ attack as either we have verified to accumulate more Ws than Ls at those spots or we're just fooling ourselves.
At the risk of enduring some harsh and inevitable variance periods.

Fourth row

Deeper we're going down the rows, greater will be the probability to encounter wide empty ranges between the "boundaries" that now are 4s streaks or streaks superior than 4.
Even here consecutive 4th rows are not considered as what we should interested about is the clustering or isolated effect of lower pattern classes (singles, doubles and triples).

To restrict the field of intervention at 4th or superior rows, we may transform the s/d vs 3s plan into a double/triple vs 4s plan, so considering ininfluent the singles distribution.
Therefore we'll take care of the 2 and 3 streaks coming out clustered or isolated between two 4/4+ streaks. (Actually at the starting portion of the shoe we don't need any 4s streak to limit the 2/3 ranges).
As long as one or more double or one or more exact triple or a mix of the two shows up before crossing a 4/4+ streak, we'll get a number specifying a range and of course 1=isolated range, 2= a couple of doubles and or triples, etc.

For example a distribution as 3, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 5, 3, 2, 2, 2 becomes 6/4

or a distribution as 2, 3, 7, 4, 3, 2, 4, 7, 4, 3, 2 becomes 2/2/2

That's the old streak clustering effect I was talking about in my previous posts.

Since the above shoes were randomly taken but too much "good" oriented, here's a voluntarily picked up 'bad' shoe forming 'less detectable' isolated ranges:

2, 4, 3, 3, 4, 2, 6, 2, 5, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2 that is a 1/2/1/1/6 sequence.

I've stated one million of times here that itlr the proportional impact of such numbers will get a 0 sum (before vig), thus there're no math tricks involved.

Progressively betting 1-2 (for example) and ignoring vig for simplicity will get:

1 = -3,
2 = -1,
3 = break even
4 = +1
5 = +2
6 = +3
and so on

Hence the first shoe produced a 6(+3) and 4 (+1) situation, second shoe 2 (-1), 2 (-1), 2 (-1) and the last one 1 (-3), 2 (-1), 1 (-3), 1 (-3), 6 (+3)

Overall a -6 units situation.

Now say that instead of playing an already selected streaks plan we want to bet ONE TIME towards any number different than 1:

1st shoe: +1, +1 (6/4)

2nd shoe: +1, +1, +1 (2/2/2)

3rd shoe: -3, +1, -3, -3, +1 (1/2/1/1/6)

Overall a -2 units loss, so reduced by one third.

Going deeply in the selected process of picking up bettable spots we might think to spot clusters of numbers different than 1 per any shoe (W, W, L) totaling a -1 unit loss or to exploit the opposite side of the medal, that is wagering NOT to get consecutive 1s by different levels (one time, two times, etc). In this three shoe unrandom example we got a -2 unit loss by betting after one single 1 spot and +1 unit win by betting after a couple of 1 consecutive spots.

It's out of question that under the more restricted ways of considering outcomes, the worst multilayered progressive plan ever invented would get the best of it by a 99,999% accuracy.
Way better if we'd find such rare spots where A>B, that is when we'll play the game having a EV+.

W/L permutations when W=L

A thoroughful study made on thousands and thousands of live shoes dealt had shown us that even if the W/L probability remains constant itlr (obviously according to the expected math probability that B and P will happen), outcome permutations are biased in their apparition by more detectable levels affected by the average card distribution.
A thing already demonstrated (but not having sensible practical reflexes) at mere coin flip tosses when "time" (that is when a given sequence should come out first as opposed as to another one) matters.

Math laws instruct us that there are no profitable spots to bet our money at a EV- game, statistical findings applied to baccarat teach us otherwise beyond any shadow of doubt.

I'll elaborate the issue next week, now I'm giving you some real shoes just considering the 2-3 streaks distribution.

as.
#49
Wagering & Intricacies / Understand The Power Of Influe...
Last post by alrelax - March 12, 2024, 01:41:18 AM
Let's cut the chase and understand the power of influence. Bad influences will affect your wagering and profitability.

1).  Expectations that will prevent you from winning and might increase your losses greatly. There are plenty of expectations that players believe in, for example, believing that statistical averages will appear in their favor during the few shoes they play within a session. But there are plenty of other unrealistic expectations and you better define what they are and get rid of them;

2).  Oblivious states of mind, where as you convince yourself you can win and buy-in past initial risk capital buy-in over and over. You better come to grips with what the initial risk capital and your buy-in should be and look at it as your chance to win or call it an attempt to win and walk away;

3).  Continuously telling yourself excuses for losing hands or not wagering larger amounts on your winning hands. Very dangerous influences that will put you into a completely wrong state of mind you don't want to be in;

4).  Senseless play that only leads to grinding you down. There's no way I could define them all because we all have different expectations we believe in, therefore you better think about what grinds you down and how to avoid falling into senseless play.  If you think it doesn't happen to you, you are not ready to define it and improve your game yet;

5).  Have some type of MMM/PLAN, that you strictly adhere to, with 100% belief.

When winning, never walk away unless you used up the allocation for additional play within your MMM.

One thing I repeatedly tell myself when I get to my personal win amount and my MMM kicks in is that; "If I held onto my winnings with a plan as well as controlled my losses, I would have a hell of a lot of money that I gave back in reckless pursuit of winning more". I consciously say that during most all sessions when I get into the win status, when I do. 

Remember, you are responding to what you cannot control. Meaning you're facing a shoe that will produce anything and everything and not adhere to anything you believe in or not and in random order. Therefore results will affect your inner thoughts, with or without your conscious permission. Remember that while at the table!

MMM is not bet selection, such as 1-1-1-2-2-3, or wagering on any number of triggers, etc., etc. Those are bet selection and wagering beliefs. not MMM.

A true MMM Plan, is a solid concrete method that will dictate what to do with your winnings as well as limiting your play when you lose. Period. It also can allocate larger clump wagering with a certain portion of your winnings giving you an advantage, especially with positive progressions allowing you quick profitability in much larger amounts, that most do not engage in or find it difficult to. 

Think and think hard about what I am bringing forward here.
#50
AsymBacGuy / Re: Why bac could be beatable ...
Last post by alrelax - March 11, 2024, 01:35:48 PM
QuoteBut I will tell you my worst shoes, where as I lost by the end of the shoe I would average, that I wagered around 25 times.
The shoes that I won, I would average, that I wagered around 40 times.


Definitely this is an interesting thing to think about.
Obviously you should compare how many units you've lost at those 25 hands bet shoes and how many units you have won by wagering 40 times.

In some way we could reduce the 25 and 40 hands by, say a 5 factor, thus getting us 5 bet hands at losing shoes and 8 bet hands at winning ones.

as.

Asym,  I will wager a greater amount of hands when I am winning,  some are pos progression wagers and others might be just the win money at risk once again.  But I almost never do what so many claim, the 1-2 or 3 and stop win for a shoe. 

When I am losing, I am looking for the recouping trend and a winning recovery possibility.  If you do not play, you cannot win.  No matter what the visual/stay out until you see virtual wins, etc., if you don't have money up on the table in play, you cannot win.  True you cannot lose also, but your loss will not be recovered either. A wicked catch-22.

And I do have absolutely great, large wins after a period of losses in a shoe.  Let's just say at times, it was a 'warm up' period before the end of the 3rd quarter.