+ Register

[AsymBacGuy]

Imo, the "bias" should be interpreted as the difference, hand by hand, between a perfectly "zero starting point" game (as roulette) and a partially dependent game as baccarat.
Moreover, roulette outcomes are classified as an endless infinite hands' succession whereas at baccarat everything is restricted into the average 70 hands term.

Of course the only mathematical approach leading to some possible advantage includes a strict card counting procedure. Jacobsen demonstrated that about the Dragon and Panda bets; the fact that ties are payed only 8 to 1 and not 9 to 1 (still worth of an almost 5% house advantage) should confirm this (final decks rich of even cards, final decks rich of 6s and zero value cards and so on).

That's all about very unfavourable side bets, what about the more appealing BP hands?

In the intricate field of BP card counting, we know that some card sequences will favor the player side, not a single card but some sequences of cards.
And talking about the sequences of cards the task to grasp some hint will be almost worthless.

Anyway, some single cards (or a bunch of certain cards) will enchance the probability to get either an asymmetrical hand or a symmetrical one.
Naturally, knowing that the future hand will mostly be a symmetrical hand will raise our propensity to bet the P side, as we won't pay any vig on our winning bets. Of course "mostly" must be translated into a higher 91.4/8.6 S/AS ratio.
Any B bet won on a symmetrical hand will be a disaster for us, since we have to pay a 5% vig not benefitting for the privilege to have the B side deciding the best move after the third card has been dealt to the player.

Some very deviated final deck situations will raise the probability to get S hands.
For example, final decks particularly rich of 8s and 9s along with a decent amount of zero value cards will greatly increase the likelihood to get symmetrical hands, hands where B side won't get any advantage beyond a mere 50/50 probability.
The same happening comes out whenever a final deck is rich of very low and zero value cards.

But we shouldn't be bothered about this facts, as (imo) any bac deck will show a so called "average" shoe, the like any BJ shoe will form an average number of some negative shoes along with some positive shoes.

We can be 99.999% sure that in a sample of let's say 10-20 shoes, some most likely events will take place either for asymmetrical issues and for card distribution issues.

To get a better and simple idea of what I'm talking about (always IMO), let's register the shoes where in any point of a given shoe a a 5+ B streak will be followed by a 5+ P streak or viceversa.
The long term 50/50 odds are 2 to 1024.

Yep, in a perfectly 50/50 game.

as.   





 

   

[gr8player]

Why confuse people and talk in the air?

From when baccaratt was invented, people has been preaching be patient, be disciplined, set yourselves goals so on and so forth. Nothing new and there will not be anything new. Measuring single, double, streaks, every baccaratt player will have some kind of a bet selection that goes for single, double and streaks. Nothing new. I can't understand the point, repeatedly beating the bush.

But i am awed by some posts in the forum that claims about a supernatural power knowing the way around a shoe. All i can say is it cannot be supernatural and if it cannot be supernatural, people are just talking around the bush scared/protective to show their way of play. Why talk loud when you cannot back it. hmm....can't blame them, the world is full of wild cats who will pounce upon as soon as someone show their way of play. good luck

Hello, Missmusibat.

The apprehension is not so much about the "wild cats who will pounce" as much as it is the very frustration of it all.

You see, players such as myself employ alot of "subjectiveness" into their Bac games, both bet selection process-wise and money management-wise.  Becomes rather difficult to either explain or share, as my placements will change "on the fly" so very often, based upon my experience and knowledge.  That doesn't mean that I don't have a set bet placement strategy...I do...but I am constantly adjusting that strategy to the current dispositions of each particular shoe (or portion thereof).

Stay well.

[ezmark]

A general question,

Will a systematic method,  which wins an average 4 units per shoe for 20 shoes using a  1, 2 negative progression,  be considered an exceptional method ?

[Rolex-Watch]

A general question,

Will a systematic method,  which wins an average 4 units per shoe for 20 shoes using a  1, 2 negative progression,  be considered an exceptional method ?

Unequivocal and re-sounding NO from me.  Forgetting the bet selection for a second (in reality there is no edge). I've observed regulars playing this way and it has generally lead to disaster.  Here is why, for every LL you lose 3 units, for every WW for win 2 units, so already you have to win a third more of your placed bets for every back to back loss just to break even after LL.  You are slowly pushing yourself into a massive unbeknown "unrealistic and long term unobtainable" required win rate.

Another way of looking at it,

Can you guarantee winning your 1st bet?
Can you guarantee winning your 2nd bet?
Can you guarantee winning your 3rd bet?
Can you guarantee winning your 4th bet? 

Of course you can't, (if you think you think you could, then bet the farm and retire), yet somewhere in the remainder of the shoe you need to win two more bets than you lose (not considering tax) before you even see any profit.

So flat bet because the hit won't be so great, otherwise in your way  take the progression further.   

[ezmark]

I do agree R-W.  If a flat bet will not win , then a progression will not improve your chances. 
Unless your progression is extended beyond your system failure point.

[ezmark]

Thanks gr8player.

[ezmark]

Just for fun,  I will post a shoe played today. 6 28 15

P B P BB P B P B PPPPPP BBBB PP B PP BBBB P B PPP B P B P B P BB P B PPPP B P BB PPP B P BB P BBBBBB P B P BBBBBB P

The following is a shoe produced by a spin on the same above shoe's texture.

                         PBPPPP BB            BP PPBB       PB  B       P P P PB B         P B     PB    B P B   B       B  PP B P P PBP

This example is only one shoe, which one would you rather play.

[HunchBacShrimp]

Unequivocal and re-sounding NO from me.  Forgetting the bet selection for a second (in reality there is no edge). I've observed regulars playing this way and it has generally lead to disaster.  Here is why, for every LL you lose 3 units, for every WW for win 2 units, so already you have to win a third more of your placed bets for every back to back loss just to break even after LL.  You are slowly pushing yourself into a massive unbeknown "unrealistic and long term unobtainable" required win rate.

It is true every LL is a 3u loss and every WW is a 2u gain. However, there is the LW where the negative marty recovers that lost 1u, as the flat better achieves 0u.

Not disagreeing that a negative 1-2 can dig a huge hole fast, but it doesn't require a win rate any more unobtainable than that of the flat bettor.

[Missmusibat]

It is true every LL is a 3u loss and every WW is a 2u gain. However, there is the LW where the negative marty recovers that lost 1u, as the flat better achieves 0u.

One should consider all possibilities. Consider WL also into the mix and that will make up the difference.

[HunchBacShrimp]

One should consider all possibilities. Consider WL also into the mix and that will make up the difference.

I am not sure what you mean. I think we are talking about the same thing and are in agreement.

The WL is a 0u achievement for the flat bettor and an unresolved bet sequence for the negative 1-2 progression bettor. Since we are considering accumulated losses we compare L strings vs W strings. Each L string must end with a W. The WL has been considered, just in reverse.

It's not really an apples to apples comparison since the neg prog has 3u of exposure over two bets, but not every two bets. The house edge theoretically grinding against every chip ever placed on the felt. So the accumulated loss of the 1-2 negative prog is greater than the 1u flat better. The flat would have to be something like 1.15u for a more equal comparison. The particular calculation eludes me.

I'm still in agreement with Rolex, that the 1-2 neg can dig a huge hole fast. Even though the average exposure is considerably less than 1.5u per bet, when variance goes against you it's traveling at a speed of -3u at a time.

I've mentioned it once before, I feel that a negative 1-2 bettor needs to also play a positive 1-2 simultaneously. So a LL = -3 and the corresponding WW= +3. But I take it on faith that the math all works out the same either way.

[ezmark]

Greetings, 

1-2 progression will pick wins betting against p or b after one  to continue   p  bb p bb p b p .  (ones and twos)

1-1-1 progression  will have similar win results as well. 

   

[Rolex-Watch]

OK, gr8player, spill it:  Your bet selection process IS:

I measure the singles (1's) and I measure the doubles (2's) and I measure the streaks (3's and above).

Singles is easy, bet for OLD.
Doubles are easy, bet for the 2-hole (read: second line on your horizontal scorecard).
Streaks are easy, a 1/2 unit at any "new top", then my parlay play.

Wait a minute, gr8player, this all sounds too easy....can't be THAT easy, can it?

ABSOLUTELY!!!!!

Look, what is your bet selection process' nemesis?  That is a true key.  So you learn to keep your potential "loss window" as tight as possible.  Then you learn what your loss streaks look like....how do they appear?  In other words, what makes you lose?  Then it's but a short step to the all-important LOSS AVOIDANCE.  In other words...don't bet when your loss window appears expending/appearing.  There's even a term for it, and a rather vital and valuable one at that:  VIRTUAL LOSSES.  Losses to your preferred bet selections that cost you NOTHING!  It doesn't get any better than that, my friends, especially not for the player who's always thinking for the long term.

There you have it again, first he was tending each side individually, 12 months later he is counting the first 3 holes individually, such a rapid change inside 12 months for a long term winner.  What grabbed my attention was the comment, "loss window" as tight as possible, darn I could  have written that myself, oh bugger I did.

Creepy and a disturbing twist to it all.....

[mb201333]

Can you give me more details  on PIT BOSS Strategy?

[marinetech]

Can you give me more details  on PIT BOSS Strategy?

simple.

he bet against 2 in a row for a unit. if that loses he bet 2 units against 3 in a row. If that loses, he would now bet 4 units that the 4 in a row goes to "5". If that loses, he restarted. Stop loss was 8-10 units per shoe.

You can use any progression. Keep it simple. Find a casino with toteboards. You can see if a majority of the shoes are streaking or staying under 3-4 in a row...

good luck....

[Lung Yeh]

Against 1 going to 2 and then 2 going to 3.

After that bet that 4 will go to 5.

What about 3 going to 4? Any bets to make here?