+ Register

[Garfield]

After all this time reading many theories, methods etc that are written here, something cross my mind.

So, let's say all baccarat players in a table of 8, for example, could only bet on one side only for each hand, what would you think would happen?

Is this favour the house?

What I am trying to say that, IMO bacc is "me" paying "you" or the way around.

So why not try to bet against a "losing" player, since "maybe" it is easier to notice the loser than try to recognize the pattern, do the math etc.

So no matter what the pattern, the last hand's result, just bet against the player you think on a losing streak.

Well I would like to hear from the expert here.

[alrelax]

I am not answering this. 

But, if I am reading this correctly--they already do this in California at the non-Indian casinos,  You can actually be the banker there. 

[AsymBacGuy]

Hi Garfield!
Probably a book covering in detail the strategy you suggests would sell a lot of copies given the frame of mind of the vast majority of bac players.

Everybody here has seen this: a player is accurately placing his bet then the supposedly "lucky" guy heavily wagers the opposite side "mentally forcing" the former player to withdraw the bet.
How many times our hero was right to erase his bet? I suppose 50% of the times.

But imo there's a difference when we have spotted a heavy losing player as most of the times he's willing to recoup his loss by big bets, for example trying to get multiple parlays.

Technically there are two kind of heavy losing players:

- people experiencing a very bad night not guessing a single hand, maybe losing 10-12 or more bets in a row.

- people who were winners at the start but willing to prolong too much the session or betting too many hands.

It's very likely that the second population had misinterpreted the important role of W/L ratio, perhaps getting 7-8 wins in a row or more W than L, some mix of them and then crossing the inevitable sequence of consecutive losing streaks.

If I have to bet basing my guesses on those two different "triggers" I definitely choose the second one, of course betting the opposite.

You can't win all night long, but you can't lose all night long either.

An old poker adage says "as long as you have money to put in the middle, cards will change"

I don't know why Al didn't reply here as I think is the best person to make some comments about this.

Besides the cards impact, it's scientifically proven that a losing player is more emotionally guided than logically guided in his actions.
So the probability he will make mistakes should be higher than a "fresh" player as he's not considering every bet as a single bet, but that every bet must be a quick step to try to break even.

Nobody is immune from this effect, it happens to everyone.

Once we placed our first bet we are chained into the game, the logic slowly dissipate, the money doesn't exist at all besides the plastic we have in front of us.

Stuff that casinos like a lot, they are there for that. They do whatever they can to try to diminish the logic compartment from our brain.

Not to mention that a player joining a casino is already deviating his logic right from the start.

In conclusion, yes, keeping track of certain losing players actions could be a possible trigger anytime we don't know where to bet and whenever we can't refrain to risk our money .

as.   









 





       

   

[alrelax]

Hi Garfield!
Probably a book covering in detail the strategy you suggests would sell a lot of copies given the frame of mind of the vast majority of bac players.

Everybody here has seen this: a player is accurately placing his bet then the supposedly "lucky" guy heavily wagers the opposite side "mentally forcing" the former player to withdraw the bet.
How many times our hero was right to erase his bet? I suppose 50% of the times.  [Absolutely, it is just that the highest majority of us remember with vivid detail all the times we wager against someone (for whatever reason) we lose.  Then when that person switches up and wagers with them--he loses.  Boy oh boy!  I wrote about this after winning the other week.  Then I couldn't catch anything.  I wager, I lose, I go with the others that are winning--they lose, I stop--they win.  The worst feeling that clouds everything to the max, don't do it, stay clear of it!!!]

But imo there's a difference when we have spotted a heavy losing player as most of the times he's willing to recoup his loss by big bets, for example trying to get multiple parlays.

Technically there are two kind of heavy losing players: [Correct!]

- people experiencing a very bad night not guessing a single hand, maybe losing 10-12 or more bets in a row.  [Harder to detect, but if you do and that is a fact--you can be successful to wager against them for a short period of time/occasional bets.  They will get grinded down no matter what their buy-in, but seldom happens for continued 'every wager' betting, etc.]

- people who were winners at the start but willing to prolong too much the session or betting too many hands. [Happens all the time, I wrote about a couple of females that were winning great money a couple of weeks ago, same same.]

It's very likely that the second population had misinterpreted the important role of W/L ratio, perhaps getting 7-8 wins in a row or more W than L, some mix of them and then crossing the inevitable sequence of consecutive losing streaks.

If I have to bet basing my guesses on those two different "triggers" I definitely choose the second one, of course betting the opposite. [Yes, as long as it is not your comrade, friend or partner, if they are--it will cause extreme problems, IMO]

You can't win all night long, but you can't lose all night long either.

An old poker adage says "as long as you have money to put in the middle, cards will change"

I don't know why Al didn't reply here as I think is the best person to make some comments about this.

Besides the cards impact, it's scientifically proven that a losing player is more emotionally guided than logically guided in his actions. [Absolutely and I wrote about that, the psych and the emotional impact end of it, it is there and it is a huge alternating decision roadblock!]

So the probability he will make mistakes should be higher than a "fresh" player as he's not considering every bet as a single bet, but that every bet must be a quick step to try to break even. [Yes that is the reasoning to the above type of player.]

Nobody is immune from this effect, it happens to everyone. [100%, Yes-Yes and Yes!]

Once we placed our first bet we are chained into the game, the logic slowly dissipate, the money doesn't exist at all besides the plastic we have in front of us.

Stuff that casinos like a lot, they are there for that. They do whatever they can to try to diminish the logic compartment from our brain.

Not to mention that a player joining a casino is already deviating his logic right from the start.

In conclusion, yes, keeping track of certain losing players actions could be a possible trigger anytime we don't know where to bet and whenever we can't refrain to risk our money .

as.   









 





       

   

[Overall, personally I do not like doing this game of wagering against another player.  It totally throws off karma, and possibly camaraderie.  I would take those over trying to win a buck or two proving that the other player is inferior or just plain has bad luck, etc.]  People remember.

I know numerous players that will not have anything to do with this stuff the majority of the times.  Whereas they have a large wager up and someone specially wagers against them or is just the last one to wager on the side no one else is on, then the largest/larger player(s) pull down.  They usually say something like, 'go for it'.  In more serious settings, it is like that all the time. 

For two reasons IMO.  One, is that they do not want to produce bad karma and ill will at the table.  And 2), They believe if you have a hunch it might just save their money as well. 

Although if there is someone just doing it every hand, then after a while no one will pay attention to him anyway. 

[AsymBacGuy]

Thanks for your detailed reply Al!

Everybody knows here you are the leader in this field! :-)

as.