+ Register

[Big EZ]

Let me ask these questions and see where this takes us....

Does variance really matter?

For example. Lets say your current way of playing, you think it is impossible through all your testing that you can't lose 10/15/20 times in a row.

Now, is that not controlling your variance? 

If that is not controlling your variance how is that any different from saying someone can control their variance by only seeing 3/4 losses in a row max?

Does the longer you go without a win make a difference if you know its coming before a certain point?

[AsymBacGuy]

Does the longer you go without a win make a difference if you know its coming before a certain point?

Imo, yes.

If we have the luck to find a slight edge, I'd prefer to place my higher bets just after a given losing sequence.
Of course because long term evidences have shown me that, for example, the sequence LLLW is greater than the counterpart LLLL after tax.

Clearly, to admit that the sequence LLLW is greater than the LLLL it means the whole method must globally produce more W than L.  That's a sort of incentive to bet every hand but unfortunately many shoes will produce few W and many L and the future recovering after such shoes might be a harsh thing to do.

Moreover, I found that not every sequence is proportionally placed as mathematics will dictate.
I'm talking about W singles vs W streaks; W2 vs W2+, etc.

Hence, imo if a given method produces itlr more W than L, mostly it's because the W long streaks are "longer" than the L streaks, rather than expecting other unbalanced ratios (W singles vs W streaks, for example).

Let's think about those shoes when a single streak of 4+ won't appear at Player chance or those shoes where we cannot find a couple of consecutive singles on B side.

Imo, selecting some rare spots is a sensible way to reduce variance and to get more precision (edge and control) on our bets.
Naturally, we have to be assured that the searched spot is really getting us a long term edge after thousands and thousands of tests.

Just my two 1864 cents 

as. 

     





 


   


   


       

[Big EZ]

Do you, or anyone else for that matter, think there is a bet selection where you can get to +1 unit in a shoe without a doubt, by flat betting?

Meaning at some point in a shoe you will be +1 unit guaranteed, you could be negative at the end of the shoe all the time that does not matter.

Im interested to hear responses to this

[super6]

Do you, or anyone else for that matter, think there is a bet selection where you can get to +1 unit in a shoe without a doubt, by flat betting?

Meaning at some point in a shoe you will be +1 unit guaranteed, you could be negative at the end of the shoe all the time that does not matter.

Im interested to hear responses to this

Can try Pitboss method and grind it out.

[Big EZ]

Not looking to grind out anything.

Just asking, is there any method/strategy out there where you can guarantee AT SOME POINT in the shoe you will be up +1 unit. It does not matter if the shoe ends negative

[WorldBaccaratKing]

Not looking to grind out anything.

Just asking, is there any method/strategy out there where you can guarantee AT SOME POINT in the shoe you will be up +1 unit. It does not matter if the shoe ends negative

think about what your asking. there is no such thing except in fairy land where things are guaranteed.

2 guarantees that you can bet on. death, taxes.........throw in one more, BS you hear in these forums!

[ozon]

Maybe if you play on the edge of the virtual limits or using  High  SD you will be able reduce Variance. but this is only a theoretical

[Big EZ]

WBK.....
You think about what I am asking. I am not asking if there is a fairy tale way to beat the game every shoe flat betting.  I am asking if at some point there in the shoe you will be up 1 unit. It could be the first bet and then you lose every bet after that, it doesn't make a difference. 

I am asking if a method can guarantee REACHING (not ending) 1 unit profit anywhere in a shoe? There is a difference.

[WorldBaccaratKing]

WBK.....
You think about what I am asking. I am not asking if there is a fairy tale way to beat the game every shoe flat betting.  I am asking if at some point there in the shoe you will be up 1 unit. It could be the first bet and then you lose every bet after that, it doesn't make a difference. 

I am asking if a method can guarantee REACHING (not ending) 1 unit profit anywhere in a shoe? There is a difference.

impossible.

you never know what will happen when you sit down. you can lose 12 in a row and be broke and go home for the day. yes, this has happened to me more than once...

[Big EZ]

Ok, thanks for your input. Sorry to hear about 12 losses in a row. I can't even begin to imagine what that feels like

[AsymBacGuy]

Do you, or anyone else for that matter, think there is a bet selection where you can get to +1 unit in a shoe without a doubt, by flat betting?

Meaning at some point in a shoe you will be +1 unit guaranteed, you could be negative at the end of the shoe all the time that does not matter.

Im interested to hear responses to this

That's a very interesting question.

After all, the most likely winning possibility to get ahead of the game is just looking for 1 unit profit after having considered a given interval of time that you set up "per every single shoe".

Nope, as it would be a terrific achievement.
And for that matter it would be literally impossible to get such 1 sure unit profit per shoe even at blackjack having a favourable counting as high as +20 or more. 

A quite different story is trying to get 1 unit profit per any played shoe.
This assumption should contain the idea that some initial-intermediate shoe textures are more likely to follow some expected lines than others. Despite this, "more likely" doesn't correspond to the word "undoubtedly".
Unfortunately. 

as.

     







 

[Big EZ]

Not one method/system has a better chance of getting to +1 from start then any other? That really is interesting

[AsymBacGuy]

Not one method/system has a better chance of getting to +1 from start then any other? That really is interesting

Wait.
In the long run, this is a sure yes.
But not per every single shoe.

Remember that baccarat hands are produced by some given card distributions (CD). Some CD won't get expected more likely results as they won't provide a decent amount of as hands and/or they will contain unlikely sequences of not asymm hands going to the same side.

Let's think about poker and about the likelihood to get any player a pair, a suited connector hand or whatever. All this is mathematically placed.
But at baccarat there's a subtle force working and shifting the outcomes toward one side.

To get a better idea about this we should run millions of shoes where the third card rule is not working and where it does work. Of course after having properly assessed the vig's weight.

That's the key to understand why some events are more likely than others. Not everytime. Not per every single shoe. After all the force is working less than one time per every ten hands.

as. 

[Mike]

Does variance really matter?

No.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambling_mathematics

As the number of rounds increases, eventually, the expected loss will exceed the standard deviation, many times over. From the formula, we can see the standard deviation is proportional to the square root of the number of rounds played, while the expected loss is proportional to the number of rounds played. As the number of rounds increases, the expected loss increases at a much faster rate. This is why it is practically impossible for a gambler to win in the long term (if they don't have an edge). It is the high ratio of short-term standard deviation to expected loss that fools gamblers into thinking that they can win.

Variance is not the enemy, the house edge is. Beat the house edge and the variance is irrelevant.

[Big EZ]

Would you consider  being able to pass The Van Keelen Test to be a definitive example of having an edge ?

What if you can't reach 550/1000 each time but you are above 500 each time? Would you consider that an example of having an edge ?