It looks like u are a skilled chef.

Hi all,

AsymBacGuy in post #939 above:

"...Who we are to dispute the common notion that bac is an unbeatable game?

Answer: because we have managed to assign a code (albeit being imperfect) to each shoe dealt, a code capable to restrict the sd values typical of binomial models.
In poorer words, past hands make substantial variables to get advantage from.  ...,"

b]a code capable to restrict the sd values typical of binomial models.[/b]

That sounds promising. Though I am not 100% clear how you are applying your algos I do like that it appears you are attacking streak length(s).Though I think it could only be at brief moments and potentially only a very very few wagers per shoe. Maybe I'm wrong and not considering whatever you are considering.

    I agree anything a player does to lower SD values is good for the player. Meaning fewer wagers is nearly always superior to more wagers. I can not imagine trying to beat bac wagering every hand.
One of the greatest advantages we have at bac is ones ability to choose when to wager as well as when we do NOT have to wager(meaning not required to have a bet to play).
 
*MEMO Reminder--Do NOT play Bac solo at casinos that refuse to offer free hands.

RE: Asyms' topic of reducing SD values/ number of bets with the selective application of Algos.
Pardon me Asym as I may get a little off topic in the following,



I perceive much of what the casino does(Must wager every hand, drawing rules, cut/burn, bonus bets,new superduper layout designs with additional bonus wager...etc) is designed to increase the number of wagers the players will bet(which increases these hedges,i.e., Pushes) where the player absolutely can not win all bets with one outcome (but we can lose all). That is, T or pushed events are not designed to help the player.

**Re:Bonus bet layouts, new variation of games,...etc: As an addendum thought I do believe there is one layout in recent years that actually could be exploited(or at least Less Bad). I don't have one in my market, and I won't mention on a public forum. Most of u know which version I'm suggesting.

As a side note, I believe the main benefit to Bac vs most dice games is the fact it is finite(meaning marbles are removed from the jar after every draw). Like Asym hints at above---there will always be brief moments in a finite shoe where the advantage(or disadvantage) has fluctuated from expectation.

But I digress. So back to Asyms Topic:


Q: Asym , re: Restricting SD. Do you mean applying something like Markov Chains and say after seeing three events IAR(in a row), you are then trying to predict the distance to absorption??? Not at all? Other?

*Re: Markov Chains.

Though applicable to some casino games. It's my opinion we have to be careful trying to generalize from say true 2-outcome games such as coin flips (no ties or pushes as every single event must be 0 or 1), vs games like Bac where every single event can be (0,1, or other). These "other" outcomes hurt the bac player.  IMO because it is favorable to the casino to increase Ties (or pushes). The more the better for the casino as we sometimes "lose a win". Furthermore, we not only lose a win we also have shorter streak length (Hypothesis by Kungfubac). I have often pondered how I could convince the casino to offer a bet on Ties with a rule that high card wins (or low card).


Any thoughts or counter arguments?


Thx in advance,

Merry Christmas to all.

May the wind always be at your back throughout the new year.





Continued Success,

Thx AsymBacGuy for responding to my Q above.

________________________________________
Asym in another post above:

"...I reckon that 99% of the bac players try to follow trends, hoping that something will prolong until one unfortunate event will stop a possible winning streak.

Let me know how many 5/5+ streaks come out on average at every given shoe dealt.
I guess they are showing up by a nearly 2/32 probability, the remaining situations belong to a 30/32 intermediate world.

Obviously a very experienced player is capable to grasp the subtle spots where things would come out clustered or not, it's a very difficult task to achieve and that's why 99.9% of bac players donate their money at the tables...."

Well said.


My preference is to wager a Positive Progression against a negative-probability events' continuance.


Continued Success,

alrelax above:
"..You too may have triggers that cause you to get lost in interpretation rather than staying present; you may even have a pattern of interpretation that shuts your mind down but have never realized it's happening because you are so accustomed to it. For sure, there are so many different experiences vying for attention in any given moment that in order to deal with what seems like an overwhelming amount of stimuli the mind rushes to interpretation to gain a sense of control. In reality, though, interpretation creates a false impression of stability. A.."

Good post. I agree for most part. I think ones triggers are sometimes helpful(or hurtful--depending how one interprets) if one realizes it is shoe specific(only this shoe), and may or may not extend to future shoes. It is easy to confuse a correlation as being causal. When, it actually is just something that is correlated with a desirable outcome.

*A funny story. A few years ago I was at a table that displayed Ties as green balls. It was early December and my wife/I had just decorated our Christmas tree and for whatever reason she wanted red balls at the distal end of each tree limb.
The next day I was at the Bac table and noticed the first two Ties(green ball) were at the end of a B streak of three or four in a row and the next decision always cut to Player(Green ball at bottom end of red B streak displayed on tote board). I reflected that was similar to our Christmas tree decoration pattern.  I typically don't wager Ties and do not really note much about Ties. However,  I started wagering for Player everytime I saw a Tie(at end of B streak). This shoe had 13 Ties (all at end of a Banker column),and every T cut to Player. I picked up a Win after every Tie from starting with the third tie onward.

Correlation and certainly not causal. I've never noticed since.



Continued Success,

Albalaha above:
"December 16, 2023, 04:53:06 AM
Look at Nano today. It is at $1.2 today."

I saw that and thought of your post when u first mentioned Nano @ 0.69 a couple months ago. I started tracking it then (I didn't buy any). I researched it some then and actually perceive it has more merit vs many in this sector (Not saying much). I noted it when it hit 0.82 and then in a couple weeks noted it was at 1.20. The companies' prospectus sounds optimistic/ more realistic vs many cryptos. Much of my optimism is due to founder/admin as they appear to have a solid track record.
However, they (like any crypto) can literally make up any claim or promise (just like todays stock market I guess). I saw a statistic recently that suggested over 50% of companies on the stock exchanges are bought/sold based on algorithms trying to predict how buyers/sellers will react (In other words not because a company builds a superior product). Now days it appears many companies spend much of their budget on hype and to just pay a marketing team to "say" their product is superior.



*My main reason for not trying to purchase Nano yet is that I can't use it to purchase a product with a higher intrinsic value(precious metals). Most companies(ones I do business with) only allow five or so: btc,eth,doge,shib,bch,ltc.  Im optimistic this list will expand in the future.
 
I consider the main benefit for purchasing any cryptos at this stage is to utilize the volatility for quick profits. However, one should be alert/don't get caught holding too long. Volatility works both ways.

**I actually think one should utilize approx 2.5% of one's investment portfolio to swing for homeruns (cryptos or other new startups). That could be crypto or any other latest trend.

Same as in gambling. I encourage one to occasionally take one unit of profit from the winning sessions (Even if one typically wagers flat or negpro). Parlay two times(3 wins), collect, then start pressing again with a graduated %(and as always lose your last wager in a W streak).

For example, let's say your typical buy in is $4k with a base unit of $120. Your win goal is >=3units. However, in this session you quickly grab a 4.5 unit win which is slightly larger than normal for you. Take one unit ($120) and Win --go to 250, Win--go to $500, collect 500/add $5 for a $505 wager. Win 505 add $60(.5 of a base unit=$565 next bet), Win at 565--add $40 (.33 of base unit),...etc, til it loses.

THEN, immediately do your homerun trot straight to the cashier's cage.


Cheers,

Thx alrelax on info re: Chime.

"...I do carry, with a couple of them having many thousands of dollars withdrawal ability per day, with no charges at designated ATMs, a great card is Chime. Chime allows $1,000.00 a day deposit and you could do it at Walgreens and there is zero charge to deposit. ..."


I did not research that one as it was 4-5 years ago. I have noticed the Chime commercials in past couple years.

*The key is to find one that fits ones' personal objective. They each seemed to have some little quirk (e.g., High daily withdrawl, deposits), yet maybe low ATM daily max with high ATM fees. I have only withdrawn from a casino ATM one time(once being the key word). I "think" the transaction fees totaled $8.75 (on 500, "ouch") as my bank AND the transaction company zinged me.


Continued Success,

Thx ADulay. I booked a trip to Macau as the Covid nonsense started(Within a week they cancelled my trip).It is still on my bucket list though I haven't pursued it since.

Pay the approximately $35 round trip fare on the super fast jet boat and you could day trip Macau with no problems at all.

My plans were to stay the first five days with a friends' parents in Hong Kong and do the ferry daily(I "think" it was $75 when I checked). Then I was scheduled to spend the latter part of trip at Sands property.
*It was interesting (and concerning) that as soon as I booked my trip (and for a couple months afterward) I was bombarded with offers to "Check my passport/verification/additional requirements,....etc" ,(for a $fee of course). Though as a visitor and only staying 10 days, nothing additional was required.


Continued Success,

Thanks Asym. Another excellent post.

"...So Lucky 6 is particularly sensitive of 6s, then 7s/8s/9s; F-7 is sensitive of 7s and 0 value cards, then 2s,3s,4s,5s and 6s. Etc.

More key cards (different ranks) influencing a side bet apparition make it to be less attractive as we do want short gaps between two hits.
Then more cards are needed to form a final hand eliciting a winning side bet, less likely we'll get short gaps between two hits.   ..."

]F-7 is sensitive of 7s and 0 value cards, then 2s,3s,4s,5s and 6s. Etc.[/b]

Can you elaborate more on the part about 0-value cards. I understand the importance of the 7-value card, as well as the ratio of 4,5,6,7 : 8,9. However, I haven't considered much about the effect of 0-value cards(removed to remaining), as to how they influence the F7 showing(other than the 7-card needs two face cards).


Thanks in advance,

Bit-Con(I mean bitcoin,aka BTC) hit $44,000 this week 12/7/23.

I do not own any bitcoin at present. I did buy some BITI(Short Bitcoin) @ 13.01 this past week. I will likely buy more if this (BITI) drops further as Im in the process of laying the groundwork to "lock-In" a snare (Kungfu Grip)    around Bitcoins' neck as it tanks and does all kinds of wild swings/gyrations going forward.

IF I owned bitcoin and in the (+) I would be concerned/ lock in additional profits while there is time left. Just my opinion.

Some interesting thoughts about Bitcoin(Not necessarily all my thoughts though I agree with most):

A Big-Time Bit-Con Pump Is Underway



Bitcoin $BTC has reached one of its most overbought levels in the last 3 years. It's also the most extended above the 200D moving average since the November 2021 peak.

In April 2021, Bloomberg made the bold prediction that #Bitcoin will surge above $400,000 by the end of year. Instead, we entered the longest BTC bear market on record, and tumbled under $16,000. Now, as the short-term bull trap grows, mainstream media is back at it, predicting $500,000, in an effort to lure in greedy retail investors for exit liquidity. The crash that follows is inevitable. Unfortunately too many investors are blinded by greed to secure profits. They will just repeat their same mistakes as last time.

When the media is bullish, you should be worried.

.04% of Bitcoin addresses own 62% of all BTC. But its totally decentralized and for the people



Continued Success,

Dragon Tiger or Baccarat – Which Offers Bigger Winnings?

Baccarat Lucky Six

Little-Known Yet Fascinating Baccarat Statistics

https://www.express.co.uk/travel/articles/1840945/world-smallest-country-Las-Vegas-Macau

Good read.

I like the following:

"...Funds set aside for F7 wagering.  I like 2 tactics  myself.  1). Hit a sizable win extremely early on and set aside my win as the F7 risk capital money.  So to me, it's on the casino.  Yes, it was my win money and I could have pocketed it, etc., but I choose to win more on the casino's dime and with a clearer head, less stress and far less or zero emotions if the wager(s) lose.  2). Buy in with a certain amount set aside for the sole purpose of F7 and/or other side bets.  To me, that is risk capital.
...."

    The Variance is obviously so great on this wager (1:44.xx) with only a 40:1 payout. Yet, one should view Variance as a friend(or at least as a frienemy). Just as we should endorse Variance on the base bets too(B/P).

What makes the F7 wager so difficult is that lets say a player is feeling lucky and thinks they can select one winner in forty attempts. So lets take 40 x $1 and wager it forty tries on the F7. If we received favor and do indeed hit one winner. We have won $1. Lets say we get extremely crazy lucky and hit two F7 in the forty tries. We have won $42. Reminder it's a (1:44.xx) bet.

However , with such high Variance we could go hundreds(even a thousand) of hands without seeing one single F7 winner.

Now, on a more positive note:
We may hit that first F7 on our very first try. Then we would have 39 more tries. Maybe like the shoe referenced above (6 F7s) type of Variance may show. Maybe we are in sync with several F7s and may hit them at the front end of our tries. This is where a solid money management system is critical. Most players would just start wagering larger/larger and splattering bets everywhere with hedges galore. The casino absolutely loves for us to hedge a high HA wager with one or more additional HA wagers where we can NOT win all but can indeed lose all on one outcome.

The 3C7s are always in each shoe. However, they may not always appear when /where we want (maybe it shows on the Player). That P8 bettor probably notices as they thought they had a winner as that third card was a 3 instead of a 4. The F7 bettor notices as they just saw their would-be F7 winner swept away on a tie.
Sometimes they do indeed show on B but get tied by P (with a 3-card 7), which is still a NOTwinner for the F7 bettor. 2-card 7s are also in abundance per shoe and often steal key cards from the 3c7 hand.
Many players don't pay attention or care and simply don't notice unless they show as a 3c7 winner for B.

Re: Counting for side bets like the F7, P8 , et al.

"Reference a viable F7 count.  I researched counting and presentments as a clue to an up coming F7 and IMO, there are none.  Again, IMO those that believe there are viable counts to gain advantages are mislead.  Why do I say that, because there will be just as many if not more of the same counts that WILL NOT PRODUCE the anticipated F7 that is supposed to appear, etc. ..."

    My opinion differs a little. I think card counting coupled with other intuition/deduction can indeed assist us with hitting more F7s vs the alternative: Relying solely on Variance (and hope).

One's objective with a counting method should be to wager more tries when the probability of (F7 requisite cards) ratio to remaining cards is favorable. This moment will be short lived and likely only occur a few times in any one shoe. In other words, our objective should be to:  "miss more of the misses" vs trying to hit more F7s. We are more likely to see exactly (0) or exactly (1) vs >=2 F7s, in any one shoe.

So, in my opinion we should be trying to hit say 1 in 37 attempts (reminder that expected is 1:44.xx),  vs finding more F7s. So, wager fewer wagers vs wagering every hand hoping to ride Variance.

The problem with counting is that even though we may improve our hit rate slightly it may not be enough to surpass the HA(7.67% I "think"). I would assume most counting systems utilize some type of card extraction and card retention as a ratio to remaining cards in the shoe. That alone is not likely to solve the puzzle in my opinion.

As mentioned above the burn/cut certainly make a precise count difficult. Though I agree this issue adds to our task. I also believe it is still doable. In other words, I would prefer one burn card vs ten burn cards/ I would prefer zero cut cards. Since that is not possible, we must accept that feature.

So, let's say we have a cut and burn cards=18. Though we can't know which cards are included we can approximate. We can approximate the 18 cards in the burn/cut will have the same proportion of key cards as any 18 randomly selected consecutive cards immediately following. In latter stages of shoe we may even be able to know exactly which cards were NOT included in the burn/cut total of 18. Plus, these 18 cards included in the burn/cut could just as easily improve our probability of receiving an F7 winner.

Plus, as an addendum benefit to tracking/counting side wagers is that anything that increases the probability of a certain wager winning must also make something else "less probable", and vice versa. Due to the finiteness and approaching of limits starting from the first card removed.

Plus, tracking/counting can't hurt.

More later on this topic



Continued success,