+ Register

[gr8player]

Interesting question you ask, sqzbox.  Interesting, but, alas, moot.

The "random v non-random" question is rendered moot by the astute player that both ACKNOWLEDGES and RECOGNIZES the differences between the two.

Their job then becomes to "sit out" the random and take profit (read: bet into) the non-random.  Sidenote:  When I say "bet into", I mean to say to accept the quick profit (or short loss, if wrong), lest we give back our profit by betting back into the inevitable return of randomness.

Now, before I am asked for an example of such play, let me state here and now that it can be accomplished only by the experienced, patient, and disciplined player that realizes the true limitations of any non-randomness that is associated with this game.

This means limiting one's bets.  This means limiting one's betting-progression use.  This means strict win goals/loss limits.

Why?  Because, unfortunately, sqzbox, this is not an exact science.  You see, random can be a rather fickle witch to contend with.  Random results are the bane of any good trender.  And so the astute player comes to terms with that rather swiftly, and works only on seeking out the non-randomness sections of the game (read: shoe).

That's why I can never fathom nor understand the player that bets every hand, or even most hands, of the shoe.  Are they doing so in the name of hoping to catch their "sweet spot" at some point or another?  I suppose so.  But I will tell you this:  That style of play, that approach, served as the absolute birthplace of long and extended negative progressions.  Need I state why?  Of course not, for it's rather obvious.  And the casinos absolutely LOVE these players.  Again, need I state why?

Lastly, sqzbox, you ask in your opening post "if non-randomness is able to measured"?  My friend, yes, it can.  A simple study of the "Laws of Series" is but one example of non-randomness measured.  But let us not confuse "measurement" with any sort of "exactness", which might have been more to the point of your inquiry.  In that case, no, non-randomness (and, for that matter, even randomness) is rendered as inexact.  So, again, the astute player can only subjectively seek to profit from the non-randomness as they deem it so, for it is not an exact science.  That is the reason I stated earlier the importance of accepting the quick profit as each non-randomness becomes evident, and then await the next opportunity.

Stay well.

[sqzbox]

Thanks as and gr8 for your detailed responses. Interesting views.

So the consensus to this point seems to be that a) there are some minimal advantage possibilities due to the nature of the rules of the game but these are so sparse and fleeting as to be effectively useless, and b) trends are examples of a form of non-randomness and can be capitalised on. So point a) is not practically achievable and point b) is the only one worthy of further discussion.

It seems to me that this form of non-randomness is not actually non-randomness at all but rather just periods of time where randomness is operating in its extremes - or perhaps easily-recognisable patterns are being thrown up that fall within the realms of normal randomness. If this is true then I am not sure that selectively betting in this manner is going to achieve an edge because you are actually still betting into the random series - just selectively. Is this just pattern betting? Because a pattern can be found in anything - if you look hard enough and are creative enough about it.

[21 Aces]

UNLV Center for Gaming Research
Macau Gaming Summary

Baccarat still dominates in Macau - it's for a reason.

One thing I noticed is that sometimes a shoe will revert to a balance between Banker and Player or be balanced throughout, but often there are shoes that are heavily biased one way or another.  It doesn't seem like a shoe should do that so frequently.

[gr8player]

... I am not sure that selectively betting in this manner is going to achieve an edge because you are actually still betting into the random series - just selectively. Is this just pattern betting? Because a pattern can be found in anything - if you look hard enough and are creative enough about it.

No.  And yes.

No, I do not bet into any "random series"; or, might I say, I don't bet into any series that I deem as a random one.  I am a selective trender/bettor, but my bet selections are limited strictly to those events in the shoe that I deem as non-random.

And yes, "a pattern can be found in anything".  This is true.  While I am not a pattern bettor, as a trender I am very well aware that the same thing can be said of most trending...."I can find a trending reason to bet every hand"...so that, in effect, a trend can be found in anything, as well.  The serious trender is the one that realizes this phenomena and, thusly, does not allow themselves to get caught up in that "trender's trap".  How?  By specializing and mastering just a couple of statistically-sound trends, rather than attempting to play them all.  (Sidenote:  Playing this selective style will also produce the tight variance statistics that the serious player utilizes when molding their money management strategy.)

Stay well.

[AsymBacGuy]

The serious trender is the one that realizes this phenomena and, thusly, does not allow themselves to get caught up in that "trender's trap".  How?  By specializing and mastering just a couple of statistically-sound trends, rather than attempting to play them all.  (Sidenote:  Playing this selective style will also produce the tight variance statistics that the serious player utilizes when molding their money management strategy.)

Stay well.

Good post.

I think that if you are playing just a couple of statistically-sound trends you are not a trending player.
I think that basically we're playing the same strategy, maybe I'm more selective.

as.   

[gr8player]

I think that basically we're playing the same strategy, maybe I'm more selective.

You may be right, my friend, but I'm not so sure.  If I'm not mistaken, I believe that your selective play revolves around certain card distribution; mine, on the other hand, does not.

That said, however, there's no doubt that we both are rather selective in our plays, and that's a certain commonality between us.

Stay well.

[AsymBacGuy]

That said, however, there's no doubt that we both are rather selective in our plays, and that's a certain commonality between us.

Stay well.

Yep.
When I reduced more and more my betting options, things came out more and more appealing.


Cheers!

as. 

[roversi13]

To play only a few hands is by far the best solution at Baccarat.
As Dubins and Saavage wrote in their famous book:"How to gamble if you must" the best bet selection is not to play at all......LOL
But "if you must" the mathematical and statistic more effective approach is the "bold strategy",with a win goal of 10%  of your bkr.
Has anyone tested it at Baccarat with(better) or without bet selection?

[Carlitos]

To add to that Roversi13, according to an Profesor with expertise in Games of Changes the best way to play in roulette is to play even changes, high stakes and for an short period of time.

The same could be said for Baccarat, i assume.


Carlitos 

[AsymBacGuy]

Yeah.

Less bets: less vig, less risk of being ruined = more probability to be ahead, more control over the outcomes, more composure (discipline and patience). No matter how good is the selection utilized.
Naturally it's not funny to rarely bet, to say the least.

as.

[roversi13]

In other words:
the best behavior  is "NOT PLAYING AT ALL" and "if you must (play) ..." is playing in the most similar way at "NOT PLAYiNG AT ALL",that is to play the lowest number of hands.
Very often only one hand per Casino visit:boring but it's the sole solution.

I don't know a player playing all the hands of 3 or 4 shoes(or more,)that in a given period(for instance a year) is W after regular Casino visits(i.e. 3/4 a month).
Impossible...

I know players that are W playing as I said at the beginning.

Baccarat is built up in a way you need huge BKR for small wins and a permanent risk of ruin....

Are we masochists?

[Carlitos]

In other words:
the best behavior  is "NOT PLAYING AT ALL" and "if you must (play) ..." 

....its up to yourself to decide whether you want to double your money.... nobody says you must do it....however, with the intrest being so low.... one might want to add some more money to the account.... in which manner that is... is for everyone to decide....


Carlitos 

[21 Aces]

There are far too many options in bet selection and bet amount.   For example, a play with confidence can be one unit (well above table minimum) and one could still play 'more uncertain' situations with less than one unit.

Back to the issue of outside of all of that, most players are playing a very low number of hands vs. laws of large numbers...

[Jimske]

Anyone buying my dear friend Gr8's double talk?

Interesting question you ask, sqzbox.  Interesting, but, alas, moot.

The "random v non-random" question is rendered moot by the astute player that both ACKNOWLEDGES and RECOGNIZES the differences between the two.

Rendered moot ONLY because whether it is or not we still must be able to PREDICT an outcome.

Their job then becomes to "sit out" the random and take profit (read: bet into) the non-random.  Sidenote:  When I say "bet into", I mean to say to accept the quick profit (or short loss, if wrong), lest we give back our profit by betting back into the inevitable return of randomness.

What he really means but fails to say is one must PREDICT.

Now, before I am asked for an example of such play, let me state here and now that it can be accomplished only by the experienced, patient, and disciplined player that realizes the true limitations of any non-randomness that is associated with this game.

Enter the SECRET SAUCE!  Here's a guy who makes 15 bets a shoe but cannot produce one shoe and one bet and make a statement as to why he made that bet.  Yet . . . he is able to "(read: bet into) the non-random."

This means limiting one's bets.  This means limiting one's betting-progression use.  This means strict win goals/loss limits.

Why?  Because, unfortunately, sqzbox, this is not an exact science.  You see, random can be a rather fickle witch to contend with.  Random results are the bane of any good trender.  And so the astute player comes to terms with that rather swiftly, and works only on seeking out the non-randomness sections of the game (read: shoe).

That's why I can never fathom nor understand the player that bets every hand, or even most hands, of the shoe.  Are they doing so in the name of hoping to catch their "sweet spot" at some point or another?  I suppose so.  But I will tell you this:  That style of play, that approach, served as the absolute birthplace of long and extended negative progressions.  Need I state why?  Of course not, for it's rather obvious.  And the casinos absolutely LOVE these players.  Again, need I state why?

Incredible!  Here's a guy who has testified that he makes about 15 bets per shoe on average and wins 54% of his bets.  Okay - let's take him at his word. 54% X 15 bets = W 8.1 and L 6.9 for total win of 1.2 bets per shoe less commission.  A win is a win.  Never knock a win.  I average about 50 bets a shoe with a 52.5% Win.  That comes out to 3 units a shoe less commission.  That's for over 8000 bets which I'm pretty sure that is more bets than the Gr8 one has made in the last two years.  For him that would be about 500 shoes.

You want to be a spot player?  That's fine.  Each to his own.  But please stop with "the only way to play" stuff.

Lastly, sqzbox, you ask in your opening post "if non-randomness is able to measured"?  My friend, yes, it can.  A simple study of the "Laws of Series" is but one example of non-randomness measured.  But let us not confuse "measurement" with any sort of "exactness", which might have been more to the point of your inquiry.  In that case, no, non-randomness (and, for that matter, even randomness) is rendered as inexact.

Wait . . . what?  I guess you are attempting to articulate that even though you can identify a non-random situation you are not sure of the win rate for that selection?  Yet you know that your win rate is 54% for all your selections of those non random situations combined?  Isn't this just a long way round of describing variance?

Stay well,

J

[Jimske]

Yeah.

Less bets: less vig, less risk of being ruined = more probability to be ahead, more control over the outcomes, more composure (discipline and patience). No matter how good is the selection utilized.
Naturally it's not funny to rarely bet, to say the least.

as.

Less vig, yes.  Increased probability?  More control over outcomes?  You're another one who is predicting and implying a positive expectation though, unlike Gr8, you refuse to say what the prediction rate is.  Nor, like Gr8, can you produce a shoe and give an example of such a rare occasion that, win or lose due to variance, has the best of it.  Yet . . .whilst sitting at a Baccarat table when said condition arises even if it is only once every several shoes you can somehow identify it!

Stay well my friend,

J


More discipline because patience tends to increase discipline, yes.