Our members are dedicated to PASSION and PURPOSE without drama!
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on June 19, 2015, 04:00:17 PMStill having trouble wrapping my head around this, John. Lots of players say this. Okay there seems to be a correlation but cause and effect? I'd like to understand the reason less bets increase our odds of winning.
Hi Jim!
Imo, yes, less bets = better chance of winning.
as.
Quote from: gr8player on June 21, 2015, 09:22:53 PMNo, FTL not a default. A default implies more than one bet placement. I using a strict mechanical placement. The statistic I quoted comes from that. So I don't have a default as such.
Your default placement is FTL, isn't it? Must've caught a few runs, I suppose.
Quote from: gr8player on June 20, 2015, 01:55:51 PMYeah, but I am still working on my mechanical placement and as mentioned above have 8,770 bets with a 52.46% win rate. That's pretty good. I wonder what the Z factor and risk of ruin is for that number.
Hello, Jimske.
Valid reasons, all. Our personal bet selections processes are rather "near and dear" to us all and, well, "personal".
But your #3 is the most valid of all, no doubt of it....."without some stop rules it mightn't prove a winner". Correct. It's already been proven time and time again that there exists no mechanical bet placement that'll overcome the house edge; so it then becomes mandatory for the actual player, himself, the "tweak" their preferred bet placement strategy into profitability, via both "start and stop" (read: bet or no-bet) rules and unit-size manipulation.
Stay well.
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on June 19, 2015, 01:50:30 AMJohn, I'm not sure what you mean by "unapprochable for a HS player." I know English is your second language and it's very good for the most part but some of your phraseology confuses me. Can you explain that?
That's true, Jim, anyway casinos are quite worried about high stakes players wagering few hands per shoe, regardless of their standard bet.
Betting few hands won't give the HS player substantial comps and in most instances just one bet ahead will cover the most bold expenses, so the idea should be to play few hands letting the houses sweating.
After all, shows, high end dinners, hotel suites and long haul airfares in business class aren't so unapprochable for a HS player.
as.
Quote from: Rashid on June 19, 2015, 05:41:08 AMGood. Thanks for posting that. Yeah that's my basic go to trend method which I refer to as my "Stupid Follow Method." It is simple and has a lot of merit to follow the shoe. I achieved a 52. something win rate over 7200 hands using that. (Can't find the file this morning. It's around here somewhere.) Maybe some of you copied that and can post it.
Hope you don't mind Jimske, as you posted your bet selection over a BacLabs, so assume it was no secret even if that forum is no longer.
What you posted for those that may missed.
This may sound complicated to some but it is simple for me. My "Base Mode" is I wait 1 hand at start of shoe and then bet FLD until lose 2IAR then bet OLD until lose 2IAR then go back to FLD. My theory is since 2+ repeats and 1+ chops have the greatest occurrence I can win many shoes without doing a thing more. The only problem is those dern solo singles (1IAR; Alternate 2's, A2's). When that happens I lose 3 or more in a row. At the beginning of the shoe if I lose 2IAR I mostly will stop and see what the chops do and try to outguess them. There are shoes where a lot of A2's exist so I try to handle those differently.
So anyway I do that until some bias pops up and I instead bet the strength of the shoe. Strengths of the shoe could be side dominance (bet straight down one side), extreme chop (bet OLD), extreme streak (in which case just FLD), extreme 2's (bet OTBL). That way I will win EVERY shoe that has any kind of strong bias. If the shoe has an extreme bias I will win a lot of units. That's why I like the placement.
I have a couple other bets that I like that go along with this. I like the "Longest Gone" (LG) bet where I will not bet more than a run (chop or streak) has gone before. Lots of shoes never see more than a 4 or 5 IAR. Some never see more than a 3IAR. Whether I NB here or bet it to stop depends on MM. Another bet I like is "Longer Still" (LS). If I am not already in the Base Mode and a run goes longer than ever before I may bet for the run to continue and stay on it until I lose.
That's about it. I could go into more detail about certain bet choices. They may change from shoe to shoe depending on other "mitigating" dominating factors. Rarely takes me more than a second to place a bet. Normally I am the first on the table to bet. I can and do play alone and can get through a shoe pretty quick since I bet nearly every hand.
Hope that explains it pretty well.
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on June 18, 2015, 09:07:49 PM
I got the weird idea that Vegas hugely comped players are sure losers.
With some notable but very very rare exceptions, of course.
as
Quote from: HunchBacShrimp on June 16, 2015, 08:00:50 PMWell, be sure to give me a heads up if you are up this way!
Jimske,
My moniker is just a play on words. But you are not far off with my location. I have reason to travel to the northeast. So, I may sidestep it to Mosun if I decide to head that way.
I looked up some of their scheduled entertainment and I can enjoy some of that. I don't mind slow play nearly as much as I dislike being rushed.
Smoke free tables sound great. I'm not one of those overly sensitive to smoke people. But being surrounded by lit cigs isn't pleasant. Plus, people can be so oblivious to their inconsideration of smoke if not outright intentionally being passive aggressive with it. And I'm not one to endure much passive aggression. But in a place like a casino, instant ejection (of me) I'm sure.
Good food is one of the best pleasures in life imo. Golf on the other hand not so much. But I know I'm the minority in that regard.
thanks for the tip.
Quote from: Rolex-Watch on June 18, 2015, 05:36:29 AMI agree. Stop digging. IMO an early attempt should be made to recoup small losses with relatively small bets. When that fails you got to have a recoup mechanism but that should have a limitation.
The key here is to attempt not to get in too deep when things aren't going your way. One way to do this is to initially cap you max bet size, say 5u, should you lose that, then attempt to grind it back, after which attempt to grind back previous losses that occurred before you dropped the 5u. "the easiest way out of a hole, is to stop digging" - PerryB
To pull this off you need a to play a tight game, by that I mean a game which shouldn't lose 4LIAR too often etc. Only one way I know how to do that, as I never carry a crystal ball with me to the casino, is via mechanical pattern capturing modes of play. Or perhaps I need a further 15 years of being at the tables so I can't guess random outcomes, like the gifted souls you come across on gambling forums.
Quote from: HunchBacShrimp on June 18, 2015, 03:25:29 AMThat rate is a GROSS rate sin commission. Still win I know but if one can win flat then one can win with a prog and do better if only because the average bet size increases. I tried to answer below about the MM. Right - there is no correlation between size of bets if you have a condition that can be identified and win. With my placement the bets are fixed but NOT by pattern so it is difficult for me, not being a programmer, to figure out if one of the conditions has a positive EV.
Trending, to me means watching a shoe develop and then labeling it as a choppy or streaky shoe before the shoe has ended. Intentionally predicting its configuration.
I'm not using balance or unbalance to determine the bias of a shoe. I'm betting that every shoe is balanced. That there is not going to be any trend regardless of how it begins. And lets not call a lack of a trend, a trend in itself. That'll be just too confusing.
I consider bias, or variance to be any bet selection out performing its counterpart. I don't quite follow your meaning about bias being about average run lengths and their distribution.
You asked if you should flat bet or use a progression. Because your strike rate is above 50%. You've already got the game 'knocked'. I don't know how you are doing this. I would expect you to know. I offered two options, however I urged you to flat bet it. I am a bit confused with your response that you believe your strike rate would fall back to its expect value without MM. Winning over half of your bets has nothing to do with the size of your bets.
QuoteThat's your definition of MM. My bet amounts are fixed. You see I believe that within a finite subset there is a point where the trued odds of gaining wins or reducing losses becomes worse. I base this on guesstimates from a curve. Wins and losses outside of the bulk are rare so stopping at a win after say, two losses and fail OR stopping after a loss after say, two more tries and fail it's time to quit. So there is the MM. Has nothing to do with the bet size which is already fixed in a progression.
MM doesn't control variance, it tries to overcome variance. MM is all about manipulating the size of your bets.
Employing a stop loss is a function of your bet selection, using a trigger to start and stop isn't related to money management. It is however an attempt to control variance.
QuoteYes, I agree most progs cause a wrench in the gears. Where you must reset and accept some heavy losses, only to be found betting small when the corresponding wins come in. Somehow you have to keep track of all of that, hope to build a reserve in time to catch another corresponding set of wins with those same size units you lost. And that's where the math guys will come in and say you will guess that right half the time and guess it wrong half the time. Equaling out to a net gain of zero - the house edge on all your action.Now we're splitting hairs.
Leave it to a bunch of mathematicians to ruin gambling. They take the fun out of everything.
Stretching a prog out doesn't attempt to break up LIAR, it attempts to overcome them. LIAR being the representative of variance going against you.
QuoteIt's one of the most attractive things about a lab. It can be resolved with (for instance) a 40% win rate. Which leaves you an extra 10% win rate owed to you. We are supposed to win a minimum of half our bets, at least eventually. According to the same math guys. This extra 10% can be utilized closing up more neg progs, or locking up units flat betting. Just so long as you didn't get an advance on your win percentage sometime in the past you weren't aware of.Yeah, probably, that's fine.
Some of this may seem contrary. But its not my intention. I don't think we are quite seeing eye to eye, and some terminology is confusing with its redundancy.
Quote from: HunchBacShrimp on June 17, 2015, 01:11:12 AMIf a player uses balance and off balance to determine the shoe and then bets accordingly isn't that trying to determine what kind of shoe it is? I think bias basically refers to average run lengths and their distribution. Another way of saying playing the trend. But you are playing the bias will end - that the shoe will balance, go back to average. Yes, a guess, and it can be played either way. Playing for the bias to "break" you might say.
You are right, most people play shoe to shoe, and think from shoe to shoe, I too look at each shoe separately. But I never bought into trying to beat each shoe individually like most bac players do. I never tried to determine what type of shoe this was and bet accordingly. I play each shoe thinking it should be somewhat balanced. For instance if the first half of the shoe is all chops, I expect there to be some FLD wins on the way. Maybe not. It's just a guess.
QuoteFlat betting vs a progression. You will have to determine how you are achieving you greater than 50% win avg.If we knew that we'd have the game knocked!
QuoteSafest thing to do is flat bet if you don't have control over variance. If your wins are clustered 3 in a row, you could run a positive prog. If your losses are limited to 5 in a row you could run a negative prog. The real problem is how far you deviate from 0 wins and losses. It is not so very uncommon to lose 60 out of 100 bets and be 20 wins behind. This kind of occurrence can be more than what you BR can handle depending on the configuration of your W/L string.How do you control variance? Money management. Which basically means quit or pause when things get too deep or quit when things start to drop off after a nice positive variance. Personally this is, IMO, a key to reducing losses. Even my posted win rate I believe would likely fall back to the expected EV if run without money management.
QuoteIf you do use a prog, you can expect much deeper draw downs than 20u. And you will have no choice to continue deeper into your prog to recover all of the excess units and the increased commissions.Yep. At some point most are going to make a decision to reduce bet size. When you hear people talk about variance they are really talking about w/l ratios. Sure we can be in a deep negative variance for awhile but eventually the casino will "owe" us some wins as the variance goes back toward the EV. That's why we cannot always restart at super small units. We are not going to get back our big bets betting small because we won't win enough small bets to come back even at 51 or 52 or even 54%. But at 54% one might consider simply flat betting because, as you say below - you've beaten the random.
QuoteFrom my perspective, you aren't gambling if you flat bet. You've beaten random. If you employ a negative or positive prog, you are now once again gambling with random. That's playing with fire.It's the same thing with any stretched prog, string, labby, whatever. At some point you're going to be going south and then at some point your going to have to take a stand. These stretched progressions are attempting to break up the LIAR and it's a good idea to do so.
Keep in mind even a small prog like GR8's series has you DOUBLING your draw down potential with the first step. Or increasing it by 50% if you can 1.5u bet. Either way, you get my drift. You will always be going backwards faster, since you will revert to a 1u bet when you get to even.
I've always thought anyone playing a 1 2 4 negative marty should always play a 1 2 4 positive prog simultaneously. Risking 7u to win 1, but never balancing that out with winning 7u with 1 seems, I don't know, unbalanced. I'm sure it all ends up the same either way, its just a matter of perspective.
[code=xml][/code]
Quote from: gr8player on June 16, 2015, 08:46:19 PMSorry Gr8 this just ain't so! One must win more hands than lose (and overcome the vig) OR have larger winning bets than the cumulative losing bets (and overcome the vig). So please stop saying that. [Sidebar condescending remark Come on, you're smarter than that.]
I have said it countless times, and it bears repeating here:
In the long run (read: over your long term play), one must utilize a bet selection process that will win more bets than lose IF they want to win over that long term. In other words, one's bet selection process must prove as POSITIVE (read: above 50%) over the long term.
Lacking that, you'd either need the luck of a leprechaun or the bankroll of a casino.
Bottom line: Gotta put your money into the correct circle more often than not. And, even then, a money-management plan that is built around certain variance stats (i.e., avg drawdowns and avg win/loss streaks) is necessary as well.
That's it, folks. Better learn to pick the winner in some form of a consistent and RELIABLE fashion, or you can choose to just be another ploppie that the casinos love.
Quote from: HunchBacShrimp on June 16, 2015, 08:26:41 PMYes, I'm with you. If 5 LIAR ocurr ever 75 hands than 9 LIAR should ocurr about every 1200 hands. So over 15,000 that's not a great feat but lifetime? I still think I'm close but don't really know.
Jimske,
I'm not intending to be disagreeable but I find it difficult to believe a career of only five occurrences of 9LIAR. I would think that you had overlooked them somehow. Perhaps, closing a session with several losses and opening the next session with several more. Equaling 9 or more but broken up in a manner not easily recognized.
You state that you can expect 5 or 6 liar every 75 hands or so. I don't know the math, but you can continue on and expect to see 9 liar every (I don't know) 500 hands or so.
It should be no different then the chances to see B streak to 9 or more. Should be I say. You do claim a greater than 50% hit rate and achieving that could be a simple as reducing long losing streaks.
52.31% is great. But have you considered what portion of that is B? Flat betting B only would produce greater than a 50% win rate. The profit for which is eaten up by commission. Forgive me if you have posted this in the past already. I was just sitting here thinking that winning 52 bets out of 100 isn't exactly a 52% hit rate as B should win 51% anyway. So instead of winning 2% over the expected avg, you are only 1%. Or thereabouts I'm not calculating this to the decimal.
Still over half, nothing to dismiss. I see no reason why someone can't maintain a very slight increase over half any more than someone could win a slight decrease from half.
Quote from: gr8player on June 16, 2015, 10:01:07 AMI guess the implication is that you play really big units for 2 3/4 units win to not be a "bad day's pay in anyone's book." I guess it's all relative. One man's ceiling is another man's floor. My base bet is either $15 or $25 so $41.55 or $68.75 wouldn't be a great day in my book. Frankly even at black $275.00 wouldn't be a really good day's pay for me. Wouldn't be a bad day's pay as you say but ANY win is not "bad." What's good is another story.
Jimske, no worries, it's all good....
In fact, I was in Mohegan yesterday (Monday). I took my wife for the day so she could spend my mounting comp dollars in the shops there.....she met me at the Bac tables carrying 5, 6 bags from Sephora and Brookstone.
So I had the time to play only a couple of shoes: First shoe I was plus 4 units (was a plus 6, but lost my last two bets and quit the shoe); second shoe wasn't as good for my preferred plays and I finished it at a minus 1 unit; that's about when my wife arrived, so I didn't play another shoe, finishing the trip at a plus 3 units (2 3/4 after comm & tip). Not a bad day's pay in anyone's book.
I don't go to Mohegan as often as I frequent AC, but I have been going there for a few years....so, yeah, there's a good possibility that we've already chatted up at the tables at some time or another. But it so happens that I get along with the Asian players as well, and I'm conversive with many of them as well.
Take care.