What does the average Distribution mean to most baccarat players? And can we gain betting power knowing the average distribution and its nemesis .....
Quote from: Tomla on February 27, 2015, 08:57:02 PM
What does the average Distribution mean to most baccarat players? And can we gain betting power knowing the average distribution and its nemesis .....
in short, NOTHING.
Why? VARIANCE can appear at anytime and blow the average distribution out of the water. Obviously, it can also happen to any system as it always does, its just a matter of when.....
The Frank Barstow mention distributions in connection with his theory of the diminishing probabilty. That dragon cat based a method on distibutions but the mickey mouse progression scheme don't feed the bulldog, hey hey.
Quote from: Tomla on February 27, 2015, 08:57:02 PM
What does the average Distribution mean to most baccarat players? And can we gain betting power knowing the average distribution and its nemesis .....
Short answer: Yes.
How?
By structuring one's play around its "nemesis" (read: what their preferred play "loses to").
Think about it for a minute.....One might not want to structure their preferred play where the "singles" are their nemesis, or what they would lose units on, simply because there are, statistically-speaking, more "singles" events one would encounter.
Now, on the other hand, if one were to incorporate into their play a way of taking advantage of those singles......
Well, as you guys know of me already, I am of the belief that if one has a way, a mode of playing, where they're harnessing the statistics of the first three lines in their horizontal scorecards (read: the 1's, 2's and 3's), then they're on the way to getting the better of this game.
My play sees me taking advantage of both the singles (1's) and the threes (3's). That's where my preferred plays are concentrated most. I look for small "gap allowances" (best, of course, singles) and runs to the "3-hole". That's it. Rinse and repeat.
Lose a shoe? No prob. I utilize a shoe progression, and, in those rare necessities, a session prog as well.
Those singles and threes will pop, just a matter of time. Those that know of me know of my devotion to Patience and Discipline.....again, just a matter of time and sensible bet-sizing.
Lastly, why oh why, one might ask, why the singles and threes concentration?
TBL, my friends, TBL. Time Before Last, or Decision Before Last, if you prefer. It's nemesis is most easily definable: the twos (2's). Yeah...those "terrible twos", as they're often referred to.
Not so "terrible" for me, however, as I do very well to "side-step" them. How? By utilization of my "no-bet" option....in other words, I sit out those times when the 2's are besting the 1's and/or the 3's.
So I know my nemesis, I recognize my nemesis, and I react to my nemesis by "standing down".
The remainder is mine.
Now, all of that said, are there difficult patches? Heck, yes. That 2-hole is popular enough that there has to be rough patches to deal with, constantly. But that's what the rest of my game is there for....my P & D & calculated MM.
This total package all works well for me, and, as always, my friends, I wish it for all of you as well.
Quote from: gr8player on February 28, 2015, 04:10:47 PM
Think about it for a minute.....One might not want to structure their preferred play where the "singles" are their nemesis, or what they would lose units on, simply because there are, statistically-speaking, more "singles" events one would encounter.
Actually, there are just as many streaks (> 1) as there are singles, so you
could structure your selections around streaks and your results should be the same. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Bayes on February 28, 2015, 05:37:04 PM
Actually, there are just as many streaks (> 1) as there are singles, so you could structure your selections around streaks and your results should be the same. :thumbsup:
Hello, Bayes, I trust all is well with you.
Of course, I am very well aware that there are as many "streaks" events as there are "singles" events.
But, my friend, the way I track and play for the "singles", that point becomes rather moot.
You see, I am a firm believer of the "ying" vs the "yang". (And why wouldn't I be, as I am a "statistic" freak.)
Because the streaks vs singles are equal, I believe that the longer streaks beget more singles. The ying vs yang theory, if you will.
I've become rather astute at spotting those times where, there at least APPEARS, a chance at more "singles" events than their "streak" counterparts.
Look, Bayes, if we were to debate the inherent qualities of playing an EC game, of making any EC bet, we'd only wind up wasting our collective time, as ALL events are, indeed, a 50/50 proposition (less house edge). I get it, and I know that you do, too.
BUUUTTT, we must, as serious players, get our games BEYOND THAT, or, alas, we have NOTHING OF VALUE.
And make no mistake of it, my friends, the day that I find nothing of value to this game is the day that I will cease playing it.
Stay well.
Quote from: Rolex-Watch on February 28, 2015, 06:38:23 PM
Oh dear.
Fair to assume we can now put to bed the fantasy of a 54% hit rate.....
Oh, Johno, you surprise me, my friend....I would have expected you, of all people, to be familiar with their binary tables and the inherent imbalance between TBL vs OTBL.
Then, it's but a short hop, skip, and a jump to figure out the very best part, the filet mignon, if you will, of the TBL bet selection....singles and threes.
C'mon, Johno, I'm leading you to the gold mine....THINK.
Quote from: Jimske on February 28, 2015, 08:53:04 PM
Yup. This is the problem of being inconsistent and allowing - I say ALLOWING- the game to mess your head. When it does, red flag - time to take a break!
J
This is the bane, the downfall, of many a would-be trender. And it is the very reason that you must have the following answers within your own style of play:
1.) Bet
You're triggered into your preferred plays, and so you put your chips into the designated circle. From there, there's simply no room for any second-guessing yourself or whining about the outcome; again, when triggered, you put your money into the designated circle.
2.) No-bet, part one
You're facing your preferred method's nemesis, and so you're not triggered in, and so you sit patiently as you allow some (hopefully) "virtual losses" go by.
3.) No-bet, part two
You're triggered into your preferred plays, but, for the most part, your chips are winding up in the dealer's tray. THIS is, obviously, the most difficult of the circumstances. And it is, quite frankly, where THE TRUTH of you and your play will be unearthed. For me, it boils down to: 1.) await at least a "virtual win" before recommencing real bets; and 2.) awaiting next shoe, where my preferred plays (hopefully) should perform better (combined with a shoe prog...but remember, at recoup, it's back to base bet).
You simply cannot allow the game to "get into your head" at the tables, for that's not the place to decide with any real rationale. Best to know your answers beforehand.
Hi gr8player,
Actually, I agree with you. If nothing makes a difference and the way outcomes are distributed ultimately reduces to nothing but 50:50 then it's pointless choosing one bet over another. But that's true only for individual outcomes. In order for bet selection to mean anything you have to take more of a birds-eye view. Regular patterns will not continue indefinitely; singles, doubles, etc will clump for a while and then disperse. A long sequence of B or P predominating will at some point give way to balance predominating, and so on. The art of bet selection, in my opinion, is just the exploitation of these natural ebbs and flows, which (again in my opinion) cannot be reduced to a mechanical system - it's more of an art than a science.
I find it a bit puzzling that John often gives the impression from his posts that everything is totally random (unpredictable). If this were really the case, to what does he attribute his success and status as a pro? Money management alone is not sufficient to consistently make profits, although it's important, of course.
Correct, Bayes.
The serious player has little concern over each individual outcome, preferring to focus their energy and mode of play around a series of outcomes that might run from a portion of a particular shoe or the entire shoe or even the next shoe or entire session.
In that way, their success and/or failure is measured as a whole, as an entirety, as opposed to any individual bet, and thereby releases any pressure or tension or anxiety over proceeding with their preferred plays/bets. In short, a quiet confidence envelopes such a consistent, patient, disciplined and calculating player.
As to your "John" commentary, I, too, have my doubts regarding his veracity; I am rather certain that I needn't remind you that one should be rather suspect over exactly whom they put their trust into, most especially within the realm of the faceless and nameless world of internet gambling-related forums. One needs to learn, IMHO, to "read between the lines" of any forum members posts and their "actions" or "verbiage"within those lines and/or posts, and utilize their common sense of perception before committing their faith unwittingly.
Stay well.
Well i belive in what John writes and think Gr8 has nothing to come with, just empty words and empty claims
At least John show what he talks about and give exampels when Gr8 talks in riddels
QuoteI guess I am confused here. Sounds like a contradiction. Either bet selection has the advantage whereby MM is irrelevant or it doesn't.
It is a contradiction, but you don't have to make a flat-bet profit in order to benefit from bet selection, all you need to do is reduce the variance enough so that recovering losses through stake manipulation is relatively stress-free.
If all bet selections were really and truly equal, then why bother with trying to "present a very narrow window", and all the rest of it? all such is an attempt to at least reduce variance. If bet selection really is pointless, then why not just banker every hand or flip a coin?
No need to fear the "math boyz". Some bet selections really are better than others.
Im glad to hear that someone thinks some bet selections are better than others.....
Quote from: Bayes on March 01, 2015, 05:30:08 PM
No need to fear the "math boyz".
Can you spill the beanz. [smiley]aes/eat.png[/smiley]
Quote from: Rolex-Watch on March 01, 2015, 03:47:58 PM
WHAT
I could post stream and streams of your lying-a$$ contradictions you have spewed on internet sites over the years, betting $400 per hand, 54% hit rate, casino tales. A decade later you are betting DBL, LMAO, keep going Walter, you will soon be handing over another QUARTER OF A MILLION BUCKS to the casinos while preaching how great a player you are.
As for my own play - action, IT IS ALL LAID OUT on my exclusive board. Fully explained is how I bet, the bet selection(s), how they work, the rationale behind them, I even post images of the shoes played, so you can see those bet selections in action and even the amounts bet, oops you can't, I don't want any Walter Mitty's on my board.
Bayes himself was a member, but due to time constraints and a nonchalance for gambling trench talk felt he couldn't participate on many boards at once. Many members of this site been granted access (some are still current).
What's really wrong greatplaya? The waitresses no longer watches you play during her down time, or complement you any-more? Or maybe you are no longer "rated to win" in the casinos computer system? If you're confessing to using DBL, then it doesn't take a tree surgeon to guess you left your a part of your backside in AC "again". Too bad so sad.
i was a member for a weekend then you took away access, why I have no idea. whatever..
Quote from: WorldBaccaratKing on March 01, 2015, 06:56:53 PM
i was a member for a weekend then you took away access, why I have no idea. whatever..
I was also a member, but John feels that you have to contribute on daily basis to stay member or at least be very active, i personal can not deal with does conditions ...
So i assume that is why he took away access.
Quote from: Sputnik on March 01, 2015, 07:30:45 PM
I was also a member, but John feels that you have to contribute on daily basis to stay member or at least be very active, i personal can not deal with does conditions ...
So i assume that is why he took away access.
maybe, no biggy...
Quote from: Rolex-Watch on March 01, 2015, 07:59:32 PM
This is not true Patrick, you simply have to contribute once in a while, that expectation will increase if you are logging in frequently (i.e daily) without posting. Besides you told me you were leaving, you weren't bumped, if my memory serves me correctly...
It was longer than that, a week maybe, I tend not to give warnings, because it opens up the possibility people doing a lot of page dumps, just like Bally6345 did recently. Basically you didn't make a single Baccarat related post, so I kinda guessed things weren't gonna work out, no hard feelings. I'm choosy whom I let read the details my trip reports, whom I decide to share stuff with, I don't need members and have considered shutting the thing down, but the few that remain have asked me to keep things open.
If I spot somebody on the same wave-length, I might extend an invitation. Other than that, it's private, if I could be bothered I could open a public forum with a VIP area, but I've no desire or time to go down that path....
No problem, no hard feelings. Wish you the best.
Good to see the john-O/gr8888888888one feud goin strong after all these years. Time to break out the Guinness and cahsew and enjoy the show, hey hey.
Quote from: gr8player on February 28, 2015, 09:53:12 PM
This is the bane, the downfall, of many a would-be trender. And it is the very reason that you must have the following answers within your own style of play:
1.) Bet
You're triggered into your preferred plays, and so you put your chips into the designated circle. From there, there's simply no room for any second-guessing yourself or whining about the outcome; again, when triggered, you put your money into the designated circle.
2.) No-bet, part one
You're facing your preferred method's nemesis, and so you're not triggered in, and so you sit patiently as you allow some (hopefully) "virtual losses" go by.
3.) No-bet, part two
You're triggered into your preferred plays, but, for the most part, your chips are winding up in the dealer's tray. THIS is, obviously, the most difficult of the circumstances. And it is, quite frankly, where THE TRUTH of you and your play will be unearthed. For me, it boils down to: 1.) await at least a "virtual win" before recommencing real bets; and 2.) awaiting next shoe, where my preferred plays (hopefully) should perform better (combined with a shoe prog...but remember, at recoup, it's back to base bet).
You simply cannot allow the game to "get into your head" at the tables, for that's not the place to decide with any real rationale. Best to know your answers beforehand.
I have to say I agree with you for the most. Especially, on the virtual win part. Any system, whatever, however you play, will run into a rough patch at some point. You either use a progression that can withstand that and have very deep pockets, or, when you hit 'X' amount of losses, you simply sit out and wait for a 'W' to get back in. Certainly a W could come in while playing virtual and triggering you back into the game and you could hit another X amount of losses, that's the beauty of random games, you just never, ever know....
BUT....
From recently testing, I can go on a nice tear and be up only to see it be eaten away by a longggg string of losses....So, I am starting to sit on the sidelines when I hit X amount of losses and then when I see a virtual W, I get back in....Sometimes, it works like a charm and you saved 5-10 losses and other times you jump right back into another string of losses!
You need a plan, that's is for sure.....The virtual sideline play just stops the bleeding, even if for a few minutes.....
The best triggers in the world don't make sense really, its random, anything can happen at any time....
You need to follow the shoe the best you can but even then you can get screwed. chops turn into 2x2, then back to chop, then 3B, 3P, you decide maybe they will start doubling up so when B comes in, you load up on B only to see the dreaded P and the beginning of a chop......So, you can get eaten alive at any moment...
Off to bed.........
Quote from: Rolex-Watch on March 01, 2015, 07:44:44 PM
What is this, amateur hour, is this the kiddies class? I am surprised Bayes, I thought you were clued up, with all the math reasoning stuff you post!!!
What part of "all bet selections resolve equally, when run against a set of truth tables" did you not comprehend?
How many times does one have to keep explaining the same thing over and over and over ad nauseam (having already given Jim a full explanation)? TRUTH TABLES, get it? If the game is UNPREDICTABLE and there is no-correlation between future and past hands, then you might as well test your method, any method against a set of truth tables, the answer will be 50%
Truth tables are irrelevant, and your choice of 5 outcomes per line is arbitrary. Why should they be especially representative of the set of outcomes which will occur in reality? I've said before that combinations are not permutations, so each line in the table is equally likely only insofar as order is concerned, not the
numbers of P vs B. In any case, you don't have to bring in truth tables to make your point, you might as well say that every bet is a 50:50 proposition - that has the same logical force as appealing to truth tables, since truth tables are generated from the premise that every bet is 50:50.
Agreed, there is no "magic" pattern or selection which will give an advantage, that's not what I meant, but there are still ways of selecting your bets which reduce the likelihood of long losing streaks, and that's all that we can realistically expect to achieve, in my opinion. You use one yourself to good effect. How does that square with your truth table test?
My method of bet selection is really no secret, I've written about the principle many times on this and other forums, and others (sputnik in particular) have posted examples of its use. After 10 years playing and studying even-money games, I've come to the conclusion that regression to the mean is the only reliable method of bet selection, which, combined with sensible MM (not at all obvious, by the way, and contrary to what the "experts" tell you), results in a winning strategy - you simply can't lose if you follow the principles. In fact, I believe that anyone who has success must be, although perhaps unconsciously, using these strategies. You certainly are, I could see that when I was at your forum (which was why I didn't stay, by the way - I didn't think I could contribute anything which you didn't know already, and vice-versa).
Anyway, I'll be explaining all this in much greater detail on my web-site. Nothing will be left out, including why RTM is the only viable BS, and why other approaches don't work (and the same for my method of MM). I'll also be making available the software I use when playing online, for a modest price. I emphasize that I'm not selling a system; the software is simply a tool, and like I said, you will have all the information needed to create your own software or excel sheet, if you would rather do that. BTW, the software is geared to roulette, since that game gives more betting opportunities, but you could use it for Bacc/Craps, and I might create specific versions for those games if there's any demand.
It's just a template at the moment, but check back on a weekly basis for updates: http://betterthaneven.eu.pn/
Quote from: Bayes on March 02, 2015, 10:26:26 AM
In fact, I believe that anyone who has success must be, although perhaps unconsciously, using these strategies.
Bayes, that would make a great title for a book...
''Sleepwalking your way to a fortune''
Looking forward to your site. :applause:
Hi horus,
I wouldn't call it sleepwalking, the process demands a high degree of concentration. It's not a "system" in the usual sense of being rigid and mechanical, so no two people will play the exact same way, but the principles are set in stone, so if you adhere to them, you won't go wrong.
The software tool is by no means a substitute for thinking, but having said that, it would be much harder to implement the strategies as effectively playing in a B & M casino, because the amount of tracking and calculating would be too demanding to do manually, and your patience would be tested to the utmost, because to ensure the necessary degree of safety, you need to restrict betting to the right conditions (the software generates enough opportunities to give you a bet every spin/hand, after the first 15 - 20 outcomes have been recorded).
I did think carefully about creating this site, because it's not my intention to encourage anyone to gamble, but I wanted to set down what I've learned over the years, and somewhere other than in a forum which may or may not exist a year or so down the road (no offense intended Vic :-))
I'm no gambler by nature, and this method does not require balls of steel or the resources of Bill Gates. Bankroll requirements and draw-downs are minimal - 200 units is more than enough. The risk is minimal, and it's always carefully calculated. A big part of the strategy is knowing at all times what can possibly go wrong, and having an option to cope with any eventuality, which is why I will be devoting a section of the site to statistics.
Thanks Bayes,
It's fair to say that you know your stuff and I look forward to learning more. I agree a 'system' in the usual sense is just set up for failure when the bad variance comes along. It's also true IMO that anything too complex can be very hard to operate manually in a live B+M casino with so many distractions going on. I swear those slot machines get louder every year, LoL.
I tought you gave up RTM being same as any other selection.
I'll be waiting on your project.
Hello Bayes,
Congratulation on your up and coming wed site. Wish you success.
Regression to the mean is not only a reliable betting method , it's actually a successful method.
It can be proven beyond doubt that it's a long time winner.
I can't say much here. Looking forward to your new web site.
Regards
Quote from: Sputnik on March 02, 2015, 11:35:37 AM
I tought you gave up RTM being same as any other selection.
I don't think so, can you link to where I posted that?
It has to be handled carefully, and to be more accurate I should say RTM + DIVERSIFICATION are (or should be) the two pillars of successful bet selection.
Oh I can't wait Bayses web site with all that stuff there. Oh dear oh dear... God knows when was the last time I read something on roulette forum that exalted me like that :sing:
Please don't resent me for being partially off topic but I am here here to vouch that RTM is really a thing that works and can be used to make money long term in any sort of gambling or seen in some other areas, becasue this phenomena shows its form in many aspects in our universe, and it is provable :nod:
Many of you know me from my very first post and roulette idea posted and since then I had only one wish: to become professional gambler. Today I can say that my wish is fullfilled but slightly different then from the beginning. I was dreaming to be professional roulette player but instead of that I am semi- professional sports bettor today. (Semi -pro only techincally). And the thing is that I first found a way how to be successful in the roulette and then transfered same principles to the sports betting, becasue in this area of gambling it is much more allowed to be successful and earn good money, and deviations are a bit lower to say the truth.
Our dear Flatino was the person whom I owe for being taken into the "gambling" world and Bayes and Alberto Jonas are the persons whom I owe for being professional today. Bayses explanations, teachings, softwares and tests with RTM helped me to understand all about luck in gambling and how to turn it into my favour... Things are incredbily simple here, at least for me.
What I do is seeking strong enough deviation on EC (in sports betting you have that in form of main asian handicap line for example) and after some point start to play against it... And switching such triggers all the time. With a bit of carefull but still enough sharp progression, I have yield of 15% in my business and my bank is 100 units where I never went over 60 in DD and that was due to my wrong reckless decisions at that time. My banks are multiplied decent amount of times by now without single loss. Now I have few of them in the background and making money seems unrealisticly easy.. Huh should I say that? [smiley]aes/thinking.png[/smiley]
I was living only from bookie juices for some time, and then suddenly I got a job. I accepted it although today I earn monthly 6 times more on betting then my sallary is... And that ratio will be higher and higher... I work at office, many would say boring job, but you have to do something in your life. So due to that I can't call myself full-blooded professional gambler, although I would like ;)
This true story sums all what Bayes is saying here and what has said many times...
RTM works and can be used to be nicely profitable in the gambling. You have my word too. And you can put it in the bank. [smiley]aes/thumb.png[/smiley]
Best
Drazen
Congrats, Drazen!!!
Bayes on your theory on RTM do you flat bet or use a progression?
I have 53% strike rate on average odds of 2.03 so it seems I have an slight edge anyway. But I use mild progression to boost my profit.
is this gonna be another thread like the one with 30 pages with useless mumbo jumbo? or is someone gonna start posting some ideas for reference and some proof about these so-called claims....?
otherwise, its the same story different day. one guy now says he makes 6x his salary but got a job? did i read that correctly?
i just got new boots in the mail friday, guess i better put them on in case stuff starts getting deep in here.................
Nice post (starting from the post's name :)), nice replies.
I've been always taught that no any MM ever invented could beat itlr a 50/50 game, let alone a 50/50 taxed game.
Maybe someone have succeeded in that, maybe he/she should present his/her work at the MIT or at The University of Nevada, Reno NV where stuff like this is taken in deep consideration.
IMO and in the opinion of my data, if baccarat would be the product of a perfect 50/50 game (no third card rule) there's almost no way to get an edge. I sayed "almost" because in some situations the study of certain final patterns might produce interesting betting circumstances.
Hence IMO and in the opinion of our data we should focus our attention on the flaws (disparities)the game is constantly although whimsically providing.
The whimsical aspect, IMO and in the opinion of our data, is the hardest part to control. Obviously.
The whimsical aspect constantly fights with the expected values, but itlr (and fortunately even on shortest denominations) the latter will prevail over the former.
In such disorganized world we should be able to spot the situations where the more likely situations (because at bac there are more likely situations unlike other similar games) are more likely to happen.
Is this task an easy work?
Nope, by any means.
The way is relatively difficult to find profitable black jack opportunities, the like baccarat works.
Variance will steadily act, either in positive fashion or in negative fashion.
The paramount difference between those two games (aside the mathematical aspect) is that positive periods are always profitable for the bj player whereas positive periods at baccarat most of the time are misleading; conversely, negative periods for a bj player are always negative, at baccarat negative periods whether properly assessed might be propethic of some positive fragments' production.
But we baccarat players want to control the uncontrollable, guessing the unguessable, trying to get a balancement on our W/L ratio within too restricted terms.
Bayes insists on the RTM importance.
I can't disagree. Somewhere in my useless post I cited the "regression effect". Along with other parameters, the regression effect will shift the outcomes in our direction.
Naturally, to accept a possible RTM influence automatically presume to wait favourable circumstances. And they are not so frequent, IMO and in the opinion of our data.
We shouldn't forget that what shifts a 50/50 game into a 50.68/49.32 game is the asymmetricity. And this works by a less than 1/10 average impact. Secondary importance will take the card distribution, itself altering the as production.
Easy to notice that such unbalancing forces cannot regularly act, not per every shoe' section, not per every shoe, not per every dozen of shoes and sometimes not even per every hundred of shoes.
IMO, considering beatable a given game itlr means to get an edge by a flat betting mechanical play where no one expert of the world could disagree on that.
Several years ago I made an experiment putting in a dark bowl 52 winning red balls along with 48 blue losing balls, asking my friends to pick up one ball and registering the outcomes. Everytime the chosen ball was reintroduced just to get the same 52/48 WL ratio.
I asked my friends to set up a play on red balls.
Utilizing a bankroll of 50 units, eventually they all went broke, despite their 4% advantage.
as.
@ Drazen,
Nice to hear you're doing well at sports betting. I think you'll like my new software, I've been tweaking it for months and it's really awesome (although I say so myself).
@ Tomla,
QuoteBayes on your theory on RTM do you flat bet or use a progression?
It's hard to say because it would depend on your win target, which can be adjusted to 1 unit per X spins. I generally set X = 7 which is fairly conservative. At this rate, I do need to use a mild progression at times (usually not requiring a stake of more than 5 units). I haven't done any extensive testing on this, but it may be possible if you set X = 12 or higher.
As,
QuoteNaturally, to accept a possible RTM influence automatically presume to wait favourable circumstances. And they are not so frequent, IMO and in the opinion of our data.
Correct, and that's largely what my software is for - to find favourable circumstances without have to wait hours. The price you pay for this is that the extreme events can be very extreme (because that's what the software is looking for) and this was a fault of the earlier software I used, but these problems have now been largely ironed out because it now searches for more diverse patterns of losses (the diversification principle).
The significance of RTM is not so much that it predicts winners but rather that it limits losses and keeps stakes low (which should be the prime directive). The logic is really very simple, although some will deny it because it smacks too much of the gambler's fallacy, although it isn't: Assuming the worst sequence from hell can run to 5 standard deviations (confirmed by me in millions of trials) and that such a sequence can come at any time - which would you rather have to cope with? 5 standard deviations of losses or at most 2 standard deviations? the latter, of course. Therefore, start your current play at 3+ standard deviations. You do the math.
The typical objection is that being independent trials, it doesn't matter what the deviation is before you start playing, none of what has gone before counts for anything. According to these math dogmatists it's just as likely that you will encounter 5 standard deviations on top of the current 3 sd giving 8 sd, and so on to an infinitely receding horizon of standard deviations like the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow which you never actually get any closer to. I prefer common sense and more importantly, experience.
I find it fascinating that two completely different approaches to the game can both be profitable showing that the game is not as impossible as some people like to make out. I have to admit that I have not really looked at RTM much. I am more in the XXVV camp where using short cycles to get in and out can be very profitable if you have several angles to attack.
RTM and sports betting does sound interesting.
Southampton football team would be a good example. They are not one of the elite like Chelsea, Man Utd, Man City or Arsenal. Yet they had a great start to the season winning something like 6 games on the bounce. So a team like Southampton with a 6-0 record are not going to finish the season 44-0 ;) This is one area I was reading up on last night. Punters then tend to overestimate the teams record for the rest of the season. So there could be value in opposing Southampton. They did then go on to have a bad losing spell of around 5-6 games before recovering again.
Horseracing sounds like a good vehicle for RTM as well. A horse may build up a winning sequence of 111 but suppose the horse is now at a weight that it has never won at before. Is it going to win it's next few races as well. Was it a lucky winner in it's last race by maybe a horse falling.
All very interesting and I now have a new approach to get my teeth into. :thumbsup:
Hi!
This is for regression to the mean and football Wagers.
http://economics-files.pomona.edu/GarySmith/footballOdds/footballOdds.html.
agesta
QuoteCorrect, and that's largely what my software is for - to find favourable circumstances without have to wait hours.
Would you say that each event has the value of 1 and there is two oppisite events (1 in 2).
Would you say this chart is correct for overrepresented and underrepresented events?
(http://i58.tinypic.com/2yk1flh.jpg)
QuoteThe price you pay for this is that the extreme events can be very extreme (because that's what the software is looking for) and this was a fault of the earlier software I used, but these problems have now been largely ironed out because it now searches for more diverse patterns of losses (the diversification principle).
Are you saying with this that i can not use any combinations/patterns i want measuring Imbalance/Ecart/STD, because then i will at some times face very extreme events that we can not handle.
But what does (the diversification principal) do that norrow down does very extreme events not to happen?
I ask as i don't understand how you can reduce random fluctation and variance using (the diversification principal)!!!
QuoteThe significance of RTM is not so much that it predicts winners but rather that it limits losses and keeps stakes low (which should be the prime directive).
Are you saying that if i wait for one sequense to hit 3+ (Ecart/std) then regression will clumb or hit more frequent when it shows towards the mean, so the path avoid you to face very long losing strings?
With other words that variance and fluctation will be lower then usally?
QuoteThe logic is really very simple, although some will deny it because it smacks too much of the gambler's fallacy, although it isn't: Assuming the worst sequence from hell can run to 5 standard deviations (confirmed by me in millions of trials) and that such a sequence can come at any time - which would you rather have to cope with? 5 standard deviations of losses or at most 2 standard deviations? the latter, of course. Therefore, start your current play at 3+ standard deviations.
So you say there is a benchmark where you base your playing model upon 5+ ...?
(Same as Marigny claim, worst reckorded imblanace is 5.45 STD)
So with other words we will not during our life time see or break a world reckord and will always face a window or random string that will not go beyond 2.0 STD during our play from 3+ ... is that correct?
But then still i could face some serios loses as i don't know in which order a random flow of 2.0 STD comes with - all i know is that 12 events contra 2 events is 2.0 STD.
This means that even if i start from 3+ so could worse cenario be 12 loses in a row.
Then if some one would use the Gap Mehtodology by Holloway with even money bets and find that the largest gap is 22 during 1 milion trails.
If this person start betting from 10 he or she would face the same probability, or am i wrong here.
I know we talk about extreme events and the bell curve limits and that the random flow comes in waves, but what would be significant different?
QuoteThe typical objection is that being independent trials, it doesn't matter what the deviation is before you start playing, none of what has gone before counts for anything. According to these math dogmatists it's just as likely that you will encounter 5 standard deviations on top of the current 3 sd giving 8 sd, and so on to an infinitely receding horizon of standard deviations like the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow which you never actually get any closer to. I prefer common sense and more importantly, experience.
So you say the random flow has limits and we can set a benchmark and play "cut point methodology" against very extreme events?
Add some notes to my reply above:
A window of 12 contra 2 is 2.5 STD - but if you start from 3.00 and add 12 contra 2 you end up with 4.01 STD
I think and belive the main idea is to divide the window into several windows of attacks as the random flow reach the benchmalk 5.45 STD
For example if you divide the window into several windows you can betting three times several times to prevent the final cut point.
Does sequenses or windows determine how smooth or agressive you have to bet.
@Bayes.
Hi!
I'm a big fan of MdG so I perfectly know what you mean. His theories were applied at roulette with disastrous results eventually the author went in misery, mostly because he tried to look for deviations created artificially.
A detailed software has demonstrated that MdG main system (waiting for 3sf deviations and then bet after etc..) at roulette doesn't work at all. If interested I could send you a copy.
So mathematicians seem to be totally right: there's no point of intervention in trying to take advantage of the "ecartes" (deviations).
That's what happens at roulette, a perfect random machine.
At baccarat things significantly change for the reasons I stressed along my post.
So, IMO the RTM (regression effect) along with other parameters could play an important role in determining the possible profitable betting spots.
Anyway I strongly think that without utilizing some MdG ideas, it's literally impossible for a player to find out a FB edge and to make it working in practice.
as.
@ Patrik,
Yes, to all your questions. :thumbsup: You're an expert in cut-point methodology, do you no longer think it's effective? and if so, why not?
Regarding diversification, it's just a fancy way of saying "don't put all your eggs in one basket". A simple example in roulette which FLAT posted would be to bet 3 units on an even chance. There are lots of ways of doing it, but instead of putting 3 units on red, you would put one unit on each of 3 sixlines, the first being the "coldest", the second the "hottest", and the 3rd "average". The variance is reduced compared to betting only on red, even though the return is the same.
@ As,
Yes there are problems with using "artificially" generated deviations, but I don't use RTM as an exclusive method, it's a total package including MM, and I'm not aiming for flat betting either, just a way to avoid the sequences from hell. That's enough for me, and it really does work.
QuoteRegarding diversification, it's just a fancy way of saying "don't put all your eggs in one basket". A simple example in roulette which FLAT posted would be to bet 3 units on an even chance. There are lots of ways of doing it, but instead of putting 3 units on red, you would put one unit on each of 3 sixlines, the first being the "coldest", the second the "hottest", and the 3rd "average". The variance is reduced compared to betting only on red, even though the return is the same.
Bayes i think i understand diversification, assume i have 2.0 window after 3+, then i can divide the window into three sequential attacks and still cover the limit of 5.0.
But i like practical exampels:
Lets say Red has the value of 1 and Black has the value of 1.
Now i have 14 Reds and 2 Blacks.
R R R R R R R B R R R R R R R B
1) Now if i start betting now i will chasing for regression as its not present and the Ecart 3.00 can grow stronger (here i can face 17 loses before i reach Ecart of 5.04)
2) But if i wait for one more black to show before betting the Ecart drop to 2.5 (this means i aim for lower values and regression towards 2.32/2.13).
Assume we aim to hit only once.
So which way should one take?
Assume i divide attacks into three attempts:
Then the Ecart not get so much effect with up and downs (strenght) if i pick option 2 above.
For example using diversification: (as i understand it)
3.00 X B
3.15 L R
3.29 L R
3.44 L R
3.13 X B
3.27 L R
3.41 L R
3.54 L R
3.26 X B
3.40 L R
3.53 L R
3.65 L R
We end up hovering around 3.00 and 3.50 using diversification (and this is about hitting once).
Maybe i think wrong, but i find it hard how diversifictation would work when you aim to catch regression (if we talk about winning one bet only).
I don't see a solution for option 1, so did not discuss it any further.
Also diversification might work if you aim to win several bets of regression towards the mean, but then it get more complex.
Quote from: Bayes on March 04, 2015, 08:44:03 AM
@ As,
Yes there are problems with using "artificially" generated deviations, but I don't use RTM as an exclusive method,
I agree. Imo, RTM only isn't sufficient to build a long term winning plan.
Congratulations for your good results!
as.
@ sputnik,
Over the years you've posted many times on the CPM, for example:
Quotehttp://betselection.cc/gambling-library/the-key-to-the-final-solution-marigny-de-grilleau/msg23664/#msg23664
Have you now come to the conclusion that it doesn't work? or perhaps just isn't practical because you have to wait a long time for opportunities?
Your example of:
R R R R R R R B R R R R R R R B
although it meets the 3 sd criteria, it isn't a long enough sequence. You should have 3+ sd over at least 20-25 decisions. Anything can happen over the short term, but over more trials is increasingly less likely. The tricky part is to get the balance right. Too few trials and you run the risk of continuing losses, too many and there is the chance that you will get bunched losses because you have to bet more spins. Also, In my method, I distinguish between differing distributions of losses, not just the number of losses in a sequence. For example, I look for minimum gaps between losses, and how long this can continue. I'll be going into detail on this on the web site. Then there's MM, including "damage limitation" which can be selected according to the particular pattern of losses you're targeting. In spirit the method is Marigny, but more fine-grained. I suspect that it's very similar to the late Martin Blakey's system.
P.S. The web site I was using seems to be unreliable, so I'm switching to google blogger. I'll post the new link in my signature soon.
Quote@ sputnik,
Over the years you've posted many times on the CPM, for example:
http://betselection.cc/gambling-library/the-key-to-the-final-solution-marigny-de-grilleau/msg23664/#msg23664
Hi Bayes, yes that is correct that i know all about CPM/RTM, but i did not think about probability window with limits, that's new and we can add inspiration from Gap Methodology.
So i see that you come with frech ideas and improvments (diversification) that's great and that is the reason i would like to have this discussion.
There is many new things and new words that stand for something and i like practical exampels.
As above using diversification and you end up hovering around 0.5 STD and its also apply to Gap Methodology.
Where i cut the probability window into sequenses of three.
And my direct opinion is that it seems hard to apply such working principals.
You talk about a window of 2.0 or else we will experience a new world reckord, so the bell curve has limits during our life time playing, i like that very much, to base principals upon that.
So i am both for what you write and in the same time aginst what you write.
My problem is that i can not add your principals to a working strategy or at least i don't see any practical exampel to follow or learn from.
1) Do we play to win once or do we to win several times?
2) How would one use gaps with a probability window of 2.0 (17 events)
Do you get a equliberum towards same principal as card counting with positive expectation?
As we deal with determine amount of trails and some events are due to happen, because we have never reach beyond 5.04 STD.
Where the 3+ give us 2.0 and we know that we will get at least three events in our favour as it has to drop before reaching 5.04 STD.
Abstract:
If i have 3+ and a limit of 5.04 STD then i operate with a window of 2.0
Then during this path or probability window of example 17 events it has to be certain event to make the Ecart get weaker so we don't reach 5.04 STD.
Now i can caculate how many events that has to come to prevent 5.04 STD and does should be my benchmark for diversification and gap methodology.
I need to force my self into the window of probability to catch the same advantage a card counter has to avoid the distribution to hovering its way out of my betting strategy.
Testing gaps THEORY
If i pick 18/2 Ecart 3.57
Then the gap is 4 that increase each step by 0.5 Ecart
So 3 gaps of 4 and we reach 4.94 STD
3.57 our trigger (example)
3.70
3.83
3.96
4.08
4.20
4.31
4.42
4.53
4.64
4.74
4.84
4.94
Now the intressting part here is that for each step we cover a 4 gap and get a hit
Then we incrase the line with one more gap towards 4.94 STD
Conclusion:
This means that our expectation is at least two wins or more.
It has to happen or else the distribution will hovering around 3.57 and 4.94 with at least 1 or 2 hits - less is not possibal - because then we would go beyond 5.0 STD/Ecart ....
Quote from: gr8player on February 28, 2015, 04:10:47 PM
Lastly, why oh why, one might ask, why the singles and threes concentration?
TBL, my friends, TBL. Time Before Last, or Decision Before Last, if you prefer. It's nemesis is most easily definable: the twos (2's). Yeah...those "terrible twos", as they're often referred to.
Not so "terrible" for me, however, as I do very well to "side-step" them. How? By utilization of my "no-bet" option....in other words, I sit out those times when the 2's are besting the 1's and/or the 3's.
So I know my nemesis, I recognize my nemesis, and I react to my nemesis by "standing down".
So you side-step the 2's, and only playing for the chops and 3 streaks which you hope to capture Absolutely amazing, darrn, never realised the game was so easy, golden in fact, utterly amazing..
Stay well, wishing you the best of it, my friend, blah blah
QuoteGr8 said: Not so "terrible" for me, however, as I do very well to "side-step" them. How? By utilization of my "no-bet" option....in other words, I sit out those times when the 2's are besting the 1's and/or the 3's.
So I know my nemesis, I recognize my nemesis, and I react to my nemesis by "standing down".
Quote from: Rolex-Watch on October 20, 2015, 02:16:44 AM
So you side-step the 2's, and only playing for the chops and 3 streaks which you hope to capture Absolutely amazing, darrn, never realised the game was so easy, golden in fact, utterly amazing..
Stay well, wishing you the best of it, my friend, blah blah
There's another post I never read from Gr8. Okay, if you want to "side-step" whatever pattern then by definition you are looking for groups of decisions to conform to a certain distribution you want to bet into. Gr8 doesn't say how many decisions would constitute a "new" pattern to get a signal to begin betting. This can be problematic. First, the "new" pattern may never arise and you miss all those decisions by simply betting the opposite and second, by the time the new pattern arises and you start betting that pattern disappears.
IMO the likelihood of gaining a real advantage by no bets in this scenario is nil. One would do just as well by changing the bet selection for the group of decisions that exist. Either way you got to hope that the pattern will continue long enough to profit. Perhaps the only real advantage is simplicity. It's much less confusing to have only one thing to look for.
Me? No. I bet pretty much every hand with a variety of placements based on the trend. I do pause sometimes if I am confused but basically if I stop betting I am looking for an exit. Example last 3 shoes. Made exactly 100 bets, won 52% which is a typical % for me. I made 30-35 bets each shoe then left each with +5, +2, +8.
If you read the full post, he is trying to win against the chops and the three streaks, so how the hell can he side-step the twos?? I doesn't make sense, like a lot of what he posts. Of course he might mean he stopped betting after losing a few bets repeating two's. Contradictory slippy character is the boards Walter Mitty Roberto .