BetSelection.cc

Google reveals some interesting stuff about flat betting in Baccarat.

But, of course, newbies need to take many of the claims made with a large pinch of salt.


So my questions to experienced baccarat players is this: 

1  What are your thoughts and opinions  about these two products in particular? 

2  Are they riddled with false claims simply to sell stuff to the gullible?

3  Or does each really offer something worth pursuing further?


http://www.letstalkwinning.com/SFBBS.htm (http://www.letstalkwinning.com/SFBBS.htm)

http://www.baccarat-system.com/online-casino/online-casino-predictor-system-benefits.htm (http://www.baccarat-system.com/online-casino/online-casino-predictor-system-benefits.htm)

I have never read a method for sale that beats free stuff or being better.
Is just fancy words, my humble opinion.

I do not know about SFBBS, but I do own the on-line predictor which surprise surprise dose not work as well as the blurb suggests.

I have Baccarat systems that flat-betting out performs the online predictor.


@esoito,

You asked me a while back about my systems and I'm in the process of revisiting some of them and updating them where I feel needed, so far I'm very pleased with the results I have been getting.

On on average has been giving me 2 - 4 units per shoe flat-betting only

I will be posting my updated tweaked and a few that I know know one has seen before in the next few months.

But first more testing/playing is needed.

Thanks

malcop

QuoteOn on average has been giving me 2 - 4 units per shoe flat-betting only

Is that 2 to 4 placed bets during 80 trails ?

@Sputnik

I'm talking about 2 - 4 units profit per shoe, and only betting less than 50% of the shoe.


And another one that you bet a bit more hands 80% of the shoe and averages around  4 - 6 profit per shoe, but it is a bit more volatile than the other.   

Esoito,

  Malcop has some pretty good ideas floating around and he's put in the testing time on most of them.

  You can pick up some good ideas and strategy play from him.

  Unlike a lot of people, he actually has the table time to back it up.

  AD

AD,

Thanks for the kind words  :thumbsup:

malcop

As this seems to be the current "active" baccarat thread, I'll post up this recent (like tonight) shoe that I played on BetPhoenix.

See how YOUR system play faired on it.

AD

Bet Phoenix 10-29-2013 PM
BBPPP PBBPB BBPPB PPPBB
PBPBB PPPBP BPBPP BBBBP
BBPBB PPBPP BBPBB BBPBP

Quote from: ADulay on October 30, 2013, 02:56:20 AM
Bet Phoenix 10-29-2013 PM
BBPPP PBBPB BBPPB PPPBB
PBPBB PPPBP BPBPP BBBBP
BBPBB PPBPP BBPBB BBPBP

This is how my W/L registry would have looked on this shoe

wwwwwwwLwLLLwLwwwLLLLwwLwwLw

Quote from: ADulay on October 30, 2013, 02:56:20 AM


Bet Phoenix 10-29-2013 PM
BBPPP PBBPB BBPPB PPPBB
PBPBB PPPBP BPBPP BBBBP
BBPBB PPBPP BBPBB BBPBP

This is how my W/L registry would have looked on this shoe

W W W LW W LW W LL W LL W LW LW W LW W LW W LL

sputnik and Big EZ maybe you can share how you would play it? :rose:

Adulay? do I read this Left to right then go down and start left to right again?

Quote from: Tomla on October 30, 2013, 07:37:46 PM
Adulay? do I read this Left to right then go down and start left to right again?

Tomla,

  That is correct.  The first 10 hands would be . . .

  Bank Bank Player Player Player  Player Bank Bank Player Bank.

  Another method for notation, and one of which I use a lot  would be along these lines.

  20 hands per line with each line starting with the side that hit and alternating as the sides switch.  Very easy to transfer to a play sheet for practice.   As in . . .

   B242132132
   P1112311111241
   B212212214111

  AD

Quote from: ADulay on October 30, 2013, 02:56:20 AM
As this seems to be the current "active" baccarat thread, I'll post up this recent (like tonight) shoe that I played on BetPhoenix.

See how YOUR system play faired on it.

AD

Bet Phoenix 10-29-2013 PM
BBPPP PBBPB BBPPB PPPBB
PBPBB PPPBP BPBPP BBBBP
BBPBB PPBPP BBPBB BBPBP

WLWLWWWWLWLLWWWWLLWLL (Note: only started betting after the first five hands, they were used for tracking)


Flat betting +6


With a simple progression that never went above 3 units session ended +10


EDIT: I'm currently working on three Baccarat methods at the moment, once I'm reasonably happy that they are consistent winners I will post up full details.

Thanks


malcop

Hi Malcop,


Are you working from Simple Trend Catcher?  I've found by using that and another simple strategy of FTL for 5 then OTL for 5 prove to provide a nice consistent jingle in the pocket at the end of the day.


Hope you are well.


WG

Quote from: Wally Gator on November 02, 2013, 02:32:11 PM
Hi Malcop,


Are you working from Simple Trend Catcher?  I've found by using that and another simple strategy of FTL for 5 then OTL for 5 prove to provide a nice consistent jingle in the pocket at the end of the day.


Hope you are well.


WG

Hi Wally,


I'm fine thank you.


Simple Trend Catcher has served me well, but the current projects I'm working on have nothing to do with Simple Trend Catcher.




malcop

Very interested to hear more in the future .... many thanks for sharing.

Quote[size=78%]1  What are your thoughts and opinions  about these two products in particular? [/size][size=78%] [/size]
2  Are they riddled with false claims simply to sell stuff to the gullible? 3  Or does each really offer something worth pursuing further?

Flat betting can work if you do it the right way. There are 3 primary things that you need to be aware of when flat betting:


1. Bet Timing - This is how often you will be betting. Face it, in the long-run you are probably a loser. Everyone is. The more that you subject yourself to the casino, the more likely it is that you will lose. Therefore, when flat betting, it's important that you time your bets properly, and shoot for the hire strike rate on the trends that are actually appearing in the shoe.


2. Risk Management - This sort of piggy backs off of bet timing. Gambling is a risk. I don't care if you are card counting or playing that NOR system on the BTC forum. You are subjected to risk, no matter what you do. There is no way in hell that you can remove the risk..unless you cheat. And I don't suggest cheating.


So the best option that you have is risk management. You can't remove the risk, but what can you do to manage it? Play smarter, be patient, time your bets, bet less than 10% of the shoe..


3. Money Management - With flat betting it's even more important that you manage your money. It can be pretty hard to walk away from a shoe when you are +2 units, playing at $15 per hand.  But if you play at $100 a hand, a 2 unit win = $200 isn't so bad. If  you're playing $500 per hand, then a $1k net profit isn't so bad.


When flat betting, it's very important that you manage your money. Set your trailing stop wins, stop losses, and so on.




4. The x-factor - You.


I usually say that there are 3 keys to the game (see above), but there is also a 4th, and that's you.


The funny thing about flat betting is that people think it's easy compared to playing a progression. Anybody can sit there and throw piles of chips onto the table using a positive or negative progression. Sometimes it takes balls, but it isn't hard.


Flat betting is actually really hard because it's a test of your patience. The other day I was flat betting and I had a 90% strike rate, I finished around +18 in one shoe. But then the very next shoe I only bet 7 hands and I finished +1. If you can't master your emotions then there is no way that you will ever be successful flat betting, at least in the long run.


Just figured I would throw my 2 cents in..

And a very worthwhile 2c it was, too.

A most informative and thoughtful first post.  :thumbsup:

Welcome.

This thread from 6 years ago, is worth resurrecting, given the number of self proclaimed "anti-negative progression, Professional Players" which are supposedly abundant on another forum.

One such player had the misfortune to make such a bold claim on the respected WoV site.  A site which is has an abundance of renowned math-wizzes. 

Besides being ridiculed, this response debunks such nonsense.

QuoteI'll do some quick math. But you won't like my conclusions.

The outcome of a single session of ~75 hands (call it 76 so my numbers are even) is binomially distributed, and I'll use a probability of winning of 0.495 (which is generous, your true p is a little less depending on your banker/player mix).

Odds of a single session finishing +12 or better is 6.8%. The odds of -2 or better is 54.6%. But the odds of doing -2 or better in 3000+ sessions (10 years, almost every day) is just ridiculous. I couldn't get Excel to display the value, it is so small. Even doing this for 1 year (365 sessions) the odds are 1 followed by 96 zeros to the 1. A freaking Google to 1. For one year. And you said 10 years.

I have never seen such a small number in all the math I have ever done, for this site or anywhere. Ever.

This would be theoretically possible if you won about 2/3 of your hands. But you can't, so I must conclude that your story is not believable.

.

As somebody who has studied this game in-depth for over 15+ years, I learnt very early in the piece, Baccarat is indeed more about MM, than bet selection. Therefore have studied negative, positive and flat betting.  The latter was and always be, a complete non-starter. 

To suggest otherwise is a complete fallacy and it makes me question the intent of anybody making such a bold claim. 

Based on your study which negative or positive betting is a starter?

Quote from: james on April 18, 2019, 08:54:41 AM
Based on your study which negative or positive betting is a starter?

I'll put my 2 cents n having studied a lot of progs and play both a neg and pos prog.  The short answer is it doesn't matter.  None are better than another.  It al depends on your risk tolerance, available bankroll and table limits.  But which ever you choose you are going to have to modify it in order to reduce escalation of bet sizes.  As you escalate commission will become a big factor so don't ignore commission.

Any of the cancellation progs such as LaBouchere (or its derivatives) are easier to manage while D'Alembert (or its derivatives) tends to put you in the stratosphere.  Oscar's Grind is a good safe starting point as well as Guetting for pos progs. 

As a practical matter none will win unless you can win more hands than lose after paying the juice.

I have dabbled with Parleys, I found them utterly frustrating, to win a bet then give back that profit due to losing the next bet. Ditto part parleys, or reverse Martingale, Contra D'Alembert (the latter two I have never used).   

I've used deep negative progressions, which are not for everybody, depends on your personality and risk aversion.

After many years of playing this game, you have to break it down to the basics, especially after being wiped out!!

Identify the issue, you lost your bankroll because of what?  Because you chose the wrong side to bet? What can you do about that? In reality NOTHING, the game is what it is...

So what happens when you lose 4 or more, win a single bet, lose 4 or 5, win a single bet, and lose another 4 or 5.  It happens, if you played another way, it fixes that shoe, but breaks another.  This what the game is.

All negative progressions that you find on the internet have the player betting too much in these or similar situations. For example, the Fibonacci, The D'Alembert, Z-method, Labouchere, 31 system, 2-5 system, Martingale and the list goes on and on.   

When you accept that there is little you can do about avoiding more losses than winners, you need IMO to design a betting option that can withstand such runs. There are two ways to handle these, one I will share, the other is propriety.

One which should be commonly know is STAR, basically a series of flat bets, followed by a Fibonacci, however it could be followed by a Labouchere, also the pre-progression stage could be extended to whatever you like.  You can read all about STAR and it's variations on the GamblersGlen site (this site has malware, which doesn't bother me, I scan my PC afterwards). In the Baccarat section there is a thread called "The Sequel to Elongated Star, the mildest progression you will ever need".

I will post the contents, in another post.

I decided after reading everything there is about progressions, that some late century mathematician shouldn't be telling me what to do with my money, that after X losses I need to x amount.

So I designed my own, based loosely on a series of Labouchere's which IMO is the most manipulable betting option, I'm sure VLS will agree, as he once said the exact same thing.  Quote, Don't let a single losing run consume your bankroll. How I do things, is personal, yes it is a grind, but generally safe.



Just returning to this STAR option. Here is a consideration for the board.

Grab a bunch of the most choppy shoes you have.   

Take a stack of 10 low value chips (table minimum!) say $5 or $10, play the shoes out betting FLD (follow the last), anytime your 10U chip stack goes beyond 10u, place any excess into your other pile of chips.

Because you chose "choppy" shoes, you should lose all of your 10 stack ($50 or $100).

Now you switch to betting either, $25, $50 or $100 per hand to recoup plus add in a profit, and see w hard it is to bust your bankroll.

You have two options to recoup, a Fibonacci or a Labouchere (Labby)

So if you bet $5 initially, you could write 1-1-1 and use a Labby valued at $25, or write 1-1-1-1.

$10, write 1-1-1-1-1-1, or simply use a Fibonacci with a goal target of winning 6 units, or even 3 units if you switch to betting $50 per hand, or 1 unit of you switch to betting $100 chips.  I deliberately said chose choppy shoes, because choppy shoes don't stay choppy.

You have lots of options, Labby v's Fibo, $25, $50, $100, but do include profit. BTW, as you initial 10 chip stack goes up and down, you'll die of boredom, maybe.  But it's better than losing, no need to think about, "what side do I bet next", just plough straight though the shoe, not all shoes be like this, so you will make money.  The same could be applied to the bet selection DBL. When it comes to YOUR money at the table, you want options, not blindly following some paper you read on the internet..





 

Here is a thread taken from Gamblerglen, posted back in 2008, as relevant now, as it was then.

Quote
The brilliantly conceived STAR and its many derivatives.
In a nut-shell is a delayed Fibonacci.

First off, this is my understanding of Star, or more importantly the
way I implemented it at the tables.

Flat bet five times, then when you have lost these five units,
bet five times this amount using a Fibonacci progression once you hit
the progression stage..

Therefore it would run something like this,

$25-$25-$25-$25-$25- then $125 - $200 - $325 etc

Or

$10-$10-$10-$10-$10- then $50 then either $100 if using $50 units, or
$75 if using $25 units. Starting at level 1 and level 2 of the
Fibonacci. Consisting of a pre-progression and progression stage.


So what are our options to stretch this a little, squeezing a little
more leeway where making wrong decisions is not costing a great deal.
A stress free approach to playing when in the pre-stage.

Rather than trying to recoup the five lost bets in one bet, work the
units backs.

Starting with a base bet of $10 (for US and Australian playing
conditions), the table min in Auckland NZ is $15.

$10-$10-$10-$10-$10-$10-$10 = $70 now you change to playing $25 units
with a goal target of three, once cleared will produce a $5 profit,
less commissions, any half price payouts (punto 2000) are ignored.

The same approach can be taken for the $25 min tables as they are in Canada.

$25-$25-$25-$25-$25-$25 then 3 units @ $50
or
$25-$25-$25-$25-$25-$25-$25-$25 then 4units at @ $50 or 2 units @ $10
0

Now lets consider UK playing conditions, most tables are ?5 min,
fantastic for adding depth to STAR.

?5-?5-?5-?5-?5-?5-?5 for a total of ?70, you have many ways to play your progression stage depending on your comfort zone.

Switch to ?10 units, the goal target would be 4
Switch to $25 units, the goal target would be 3

However you can expand all options further.

Let?s take the UK tables.

?5-?5-?5-?5-?5-?5-?5-?5-?5-?5 = 10 step pre-progression stage = ?50

?5-?5-?5-?5-?5-?5-?5-?5-?5-?5-?5-?5-?5-?5-?5-?5-?5-?5-?5-?5 = 20 step
pre-progression stage = ?100

There is no need to go from playing ?5 units to ?100 units.
You simply can set a goal of 4 x ?25 or 2 x ?50.

It all depends on the players bankroll, what they feel comfortable betting.
If you can?t see yourself betting 5 x ?50, then don?t play ?50 units.

The same applies to the $10 minimum tables.

$10-$10-$10-$10-$10-$10-$10-$10-$10-$10 = $100 you can cut this off
anywhere you like, you can even construct it so the progression stage
shows a little profit to compensate for the 5% Banker commission penalty.

You have the option of switching to $25, $50 or $100 units.

It doesn?t take a rocket scientist to see how it would be possible to construct a 40 step pre-progression stage if you wanted to.
Obviously this is easier on the 5 minimum tables, the progression stage doesn?t not have to cost the earth.


In case you are wondering, no I haven?t forgotten the option of switching to a Labouchere for the back end. This would ease some of the pressure playing the bigger unit size, is more manipulative but comes with a higher win ratio.

Lets say $25 minimum tables, and you have decided to use an 8 stage pre-progression stage for a total cost of $200, and you have decided to use $50 unit value for the progression stage, as you don?t fancy betting stacks of blacks.

You eventually lose those 8 green chips. Using a normal Fibonacci
you would be expect to make a first recovery bet of $50, then $100 then $150, $250, $400, $650 etc.
Good job you decided to use $50 units, as betting blacks the bets could get quite high.

Rather than do all this, you are going to take the Labby approach.
You need to recoup $200 so you construct a string consisting of;

1-1-1-1 (each 1 = $50), ok if you are thinking, I need to bet $100 th
en $150, $200 given a series of losses. Well not really, you can
build a bit of cushion into it.

Let?s bet $50, if you win the string will go.

1-1-1

If you lose the string goes;

1-1-1-1-1

You decide when you have stretched your progression stage enough,
then commence to play as you would like a normal Labby.

The same principals apply to the lower value amounts.

$10-$10-$10-$10-$10-$10-$10-$10-$10-$10 then construct a Labby
string of 1-1-1-1 (1=$25)

Engage your Labby tactics as you please.

Suffice to say, I do use STAR today if I am forced for whatever reason, into betting every hand and need to keep the shoe moving.  Shame about virus warning on GG, one of the last bastions of gambling sites that is still around. Once I bust 7 units, i simply write 2-2-2-2-2 and then set about resolving that.

This reminds me of the Carch variant of the Star progression.

Quote from: Sputnik on April 18, 2019, 02:05:44 PM
This reminds me of the Carch variant of the Star progression.

Carcsh wasn't a variation of STAR, rather a variation of the Z-method (sure-win / rambler)

This is the progression and procedure:

1 - win & parlay
1 - win & parlay
2 - win & repeat the same bet
2 - win & parlay
4 - win & repeat the same bet
4 - win & parlay
8 - win & repeat the same bet
8 - win & parlay
16 - win & repeat the same bet
16 - win & parlay
32 - win & repeat the same bet
32 - win & parlay

Quote from: Jimske on April 18, 2019, 12:27:26 PM
I'll put my 2 cents n having studied a lot of progs and play both a neg and pos prog.  The short answer is it doesn't matter.  None are better than another.  It al depends on your risk tolerance, available bankroll and table limits.  But which ever you choose you are going to have to modify it in order to reduce escalation of bet sizes.  As you escalate commission will become a big factor so don't ignore commission.

Any of the cancellation progs such as LaBouchere (or its derivatives) are easier to manage while D'Alembert (or its derivatives) tends to put you in the stratosphere.  Oscar's Grind is a good safe starting point as well as Guetting for pos progs. 

As a practical matter none will win unless you can win more hands than lose after paying the juice.

Mathematically if you can not win flat betting, you can not win with progressions negative or positive.

Any type of bet can win or lose.

However, I get confused at times here.  I think many wager consecutively and repeatedly no matter what is happening, counting on their end point after a number of wagers to be ahead and profit.  Based upon wagering 25 or 50 or 100 times in blanket succession, etc.

Correct.  I think most people get that part. There's a lot of subjective decision making involved in winning if you lose more hands than you win. I think there's very few people who flat bet. And those that do have not reported any meaningful statistics to corroborate their statements. I have documented by keeping track of nearly 4,000 live bets in the casino and have achieved at 53% strike rate. When you hear about players betting two or three hands a shoe you got to ask yourself how many bets have they made that would be statistically significant? They don't say of course.

Quote from: alrelax on April 19, 2019, 01:02:06 PM
Any type of bet can win or lose.

However, I get confused at times here.  I think many wager consecutively and repeatedly no matter what is happening, counting on their end point after a number of wagers to be ahead and profit.  Based upon wagering 25 or 50 or 100 times in blanket succession, etc.

Mostly Asians where I play.  And they're either following the roads, usually just two, or else following someone else on the table. But in casinos where there's a lot of anglo's I noticed they basically just look at the scoreboard and try to guess what's predominant from the past history. I think most have some rudimentary betting strategy but they're mostly just gamblers. You got to have a reason to make a bet. I bet most hands in the shoe and I have a reason for betting every hand.

So far Sputnik and Luigi are the only ones who have explain a bet selection. I'm still waiting for you, Glen, to explain what you bet and why you made that bet. This is your site and you post the most about the game but for some reason you avoid talking about actual betselection. Your choice.

Quote from: Jimske on April 19, 2019, 01:21:52 PM
Mostly Asians where I play.  And they're either following the roads, usually just two, or else following someone else on the table. But in casinos where there's a lot of anglo's I noticed they basically just look at the scoreboard and try to guess what's predominant from the past history. I think most have some rudimentary betting strategy but they're mostly just gamblers. You got to have a reason to make a bet. I bet most hands in the shoe and I have a reason for betting every hand.

So far Sputnik and Luigi are the only ones who have explain a bet selection. I'm still waiting for you, Glen, to explain what you bet and why you made that bet. This is your site and you post the most about the game but for some reason you avoid talking about actual betselection. Your choice.

J, Yes, I know it seems that way, (that I am avoiding the answering of it).  I am not, just side tracked the past couple of weeks since we started this.  My answer is not as cut and dried as the rest of them.  Nothing against them, I tried all that and it did not produce the results I realize when I win.  Yes, when I win I win extremely well and larger than any consecutive, repetitive based on wagering volume of scheduled hands, etc.  There is a difference with me as I tried to explain and it is rather broad and more complex than sitting down to play 60 hands out of 80 or the first 40 hands (first half) of the shoe and wager every hand or take the route of wagering every sequence of 3 or 5 or 8 hands because of how columns were recorded from a certain number of hands. 

I do promise you, I will get to laying it out soon.  I am attempting to get to it this weekend.  And yes, that is the same thing I said during the week and prior to last weekend.  Just do not forget, I have a business outside of this and gaming, I have the small kids and several other things going on as well.  Thanks for understanding, and once again, yes i will attempt to get it posted in some kind of actual explanation(s). 

Quote from: alrelax on April 19, 2019, 02:22:43 PM
My answer is not as cut and dried as the rest of them.  Nothing against them, I tried all that and it did not produce the results I realize when I win.

What does "the rest of them" have to do with it?  You seem to harp a lot on how others play.  Forget them.  A shoe starts and we got to decide when and what to bet.  Don't you know why you made that first bet?  Second bet?  Third bet?  Maybe you got a different reason for every bet.  How hard can this be? 

J

Quote from: james on April 19, 2019, 11:26:17 AM

Mathematically if you can not win flat betting, you can not win with progressions negative or positive.

Have to disagree with that, it is the variance that is the issue, not the use of a negative progression. Hence the method I posted, an attempt to control the loss strings.

The control of variance is impossible
If you can do it,you'll ll be next math Nobel Prize
If your method can reduce or cancel variance,flat bet is enough for winning,but progressions speed up your success

Quote from: roversi13 on April 20, 2019, 04:57:30 PM
The control of variance is impossible
If you can do it,you'll ll be next math Nobel Prize
If your method can reduce or cancel variance,flat bet is enough for winning,but progressions speed up your success

what all these flat bettors are saying is that variance is controlled by betting less hands.  "Variance Interruptus"  They go on to say that this allows them to win more hands than lose. 

If win more hands than lose then as you say "flat bet is enough for winning,but progressions speed up your success"  The flat bettors don't seem to get that part.

J

Quote from: roversi13 on April 20, 2019, 04:57:30 PM
The control of variance is impossible
If you can do it,you'll ll be next math Nobel Prize
If your method can reduce or cancel variance,flat bet is enough for winning,but progressions speed up your success

Yes, controlling variance is impossible, because it is independent RANDOM, zero correlation.  But that doesn't stop us from seeking options to which best achieve this. 

My "maths approach to Baccarat", goes someway to achieving this,  a repeating 1/128 chance cost you 3 losing bets providing you did not too move early, a worst case scenario, which will happen once you play, 200~300 shoes will cost you 6 LIAR, which then leads to, "how much did that freak shoe" cost you?  Which obviously is entirely dependant on the MM approach you decided to employ.

Flat betting is not enough, I would be extremely happy with any method that gave me.

LLW LLW LLW LLW LLW LLW LLW LLW etc a 33% win rate. 

I would take that all day any day, if it was guaranteed.  Which it can't be, so we settle for the next best option!!!!!   
 

Alternatively I could invent \ pluck out of thin air, claim a 65% strike / hit rate. so that you, hit me with 100's of questions which I will skirt around, eventually hoping that you will collapse in awe out of total adulation, in the vain hope I throw you a crumb of the lie.



 

Quote from: roversi13 on April 20, 2019, 04:57:30 PM
The control of variance is impossible

It depends on what you consider as controllable.
Baccarat is a finite dependent asymmetrical card process, it's not a coin flip endless succession, thus not every A/B fight will produce the same correspondent sd values a CF game provides. And neither a static 50.68/49.32 A/B probability model will produce what really happens per every shoe of baccarat. 
The deeper you analyze different A/B situations (random walks) the better the variance will be restrained, that is the pendulum swinging range.
I could decide to let it go some shoes not adhering to my statistical conclusions right at the start as no single, no streak, no pattern is equal to another one. It appears to be equal but it isn't.

Btw, thanks for your kind words.

as.

How about conditional probability or should I say the fictive conditional probability to control the overall performance of each shoe.
Let me explain, you have 37 numbers and around 12 will sleep for each and every cycle and no one have reported seeing all number hit once each for one full cycle during roulette history.
Now assume I know how to catch each and every repeat without tremendous losing sequences (without many attempts doing so) well i cannot do it with roulette numbers but I can do it with 50/50

You can create and cluster patterns based upon the same principal for baccarat and take advantage of the same situation with a 99.9% probability of success, my opinion.
This is not the same childish attempt by Eriscott to catch repeaters, this is based upon true bias within each and every shoe based upon Sputniks March using patterns and not regular outcomes.

Here is a sample for 550 trails: wlwwlwwwwwlwlwllwlwwlwwlwlwwwwwllwll

I have been warned to write to much details in public, so I will send this method for a private discussion with someone having the same skills as my self.

Cheers

"It depends on what you consider as controllable."  By:  AsymB

IMO, your decisions and actions are controllable 100%. By: Alrelax. (Problem is, most of us do not even think about that)
But the shoe presentments are not, never will be. By: Alrelax. (Problem is, most of us do not really believe that either)

 Well, the problem with flat betting is that you will win maybe eight out of ten shoes overall.
Then you need to figure out the peak that makes you stay ahead overall.
We can not win them all.

I test my variants using Sputnik's March and say to my self, now I need to be satisfied and stop tweaking.
Maybe so many fail using flat betting principal because they don't know how and when to accept loses.
Also that each and every attack involves reversals and sometimes is better then continue playing for a profit.

This is today's random org file using one variant of Sputnik's March.

LW LLW W W W W W W LLL W W W W W LW W W LLL W LW LW LW W W W W W W LW LW LW LLW W LLW LLL W W W W W LW LLW LW W LLW LLW W LW LW W W LLL W LLL W W LLW W W

Now I say to my self it does not get better than this and still, I find my self tweaking and come up with different solutions.
This one those not work long term using flat betting, but I triple my bankroll several times using a smooth progression similar to Hollandish.
Two wins within three attempts staking 111 222 333 444 555 ...
Most of the times you make +2 units flat betting 3 units without placing higher unit values.
I have been up 4 units and then down to 3 and 2 and back to 1 to break even.
it's a grind and very stable with La Partage Rule.

Cheers

Stratege - I have been warned about posting to much sensitive information that others steel and try to sell - also get several private messages about the question of how to play.
To be honest I only feel I been meeting two that are on a similar level.
That is you and the member AsymBacGuy at betselection cc.

Now I stop revealing sensitive information and can only talk in general, I feel I moved from Marigny more and more and concentrate my research and development on my discovery.
The basic idea has already been posted as Sputnik's March and you can google it, the deeper understanding behind the concept I am willing to share with you and AsymBacGuy who I email yesterday.
The reason is that I might be missing some angle or tweak or other information that I might be unaware of where you could contribute - give and take.

No one has discovered such strong bias with random bits using any similar concept.
There have been close attempts that did not work - Like Ellis NOR method.

I reach a level of understanding where i can claim to know why and where larger series will unfold based upon math and probability with such likelihood that my odds is better than the average punter.
When you follow the norm and the traditional thinking you end up on no man land where there is no solutions.

I can isolate one bias among other bias sequences and pinpoint out what will happen next or I can use a march to try to take advantage of all angles because I understand how to read random bits.
This means that I been working on solutions to play Baccarat Tournament and try to win the first price - there you have the serious money.

Cheers

We've all been there, some eureka moment, until you discover that it really isn't once you take it to tables.  It is a whole different world from the kitchen table to the casino tables.   We all imagine we are going to travel the world, living the high life, staying in five star hotels, drinking fine wines, while you bring casinos to their knees. 

When you start risking real money in the real world and you have made it, then perhaps you could buy this forum from Victor.

As somebody who has actually won a Baccarat tournament, it has nothing to do with bet selection, rather you are competing against other players, so this super secret method wouldn't work, because you have to look at your rivals chip stack, how much they are ahead bet accordingly sometimes on the opposite side of them if you are behind.

I work for a living and don't want to live on gambling money.
You can share your opinions and I am free to share mine.

I play online and been thinking to make a youtube channel and offering live sessions with Twitch TV.
We all have different conditions in our city's, I only have one local international casino in my town where I play.

If you play for a living that your way of life and keeps up the good work, I don't mind, or should I say I don't care.

Cheers

If you chose to share this with AsymBacGuy and that you have been warned not post it (by whom exactly), then why not just do that. 

Why the need to tell everybody who you chose not to share, that you only going to share with one person?

Why even tell the board!!!!

Quote from: Sputnik on April 29, 2019, 04:14:40 PM
You can share your opinions and I am free to share mine.

So long as it is not the system it-self

Are you seeking attention?


Cheers

I don't care so much about negative energy from others, so I wish you a nice evening and happy winnings.

Cheers

Thank you

But hey, just step back for a second and ask yourself, why you felt the need to broadcast on a public forum that you are not sharing with anybody but asym!!!   

For your information, being a full time player, is the same as working for a living, sometimes the rewards are significantly better.

Quote from: Sputnik on April 29, 2019, 02:51:55 PM
Stratege - I have been warned about posting to much sensitive information that others steel and try to sell - also get several private messages about the question of how to play.
To be honest I only feel I been meeting two that are on a similar level.
That is you and the member AsymBacGuy at betselection cc.

You mean me, right?  ;)

Anywho, coincidentally I was going to post something RE: Sputnik March or my best representation of it from my own perspective and from stuff you said.  I extrapolated that your flat betting is getting about 6 bets per 75 decisions?   Maybe you could comment on that.  So today I played a shoe with the specific intention of posting it.  It's an attempt to capture the bias as per your defined states: A, B, C.  Reason is that lots of players play what they consider the bias.  Glen does as well but mums the word with that guy. 

As everyone knows I play a lot of hands in a shoe.  I did here as well with full recognition that you are looking for certain spots within the bias.  So here goes.  Maybe some others would like to opine on this concept after reading your stuff.  BTW, this happened to be a pretty easy shoe.  I get that.  As you can see I am switching according to the bias of the shoe.  But, this is not exactly how you do it.  It appears you're looking for something a little different by waiting for a pattern to emerge with the A,B and C series.  I don't know much about that.  But it' not really rocket science. 

With A series going to bet for chop and 2<2.  For B series going to bet chop and 2>3.  For C series going to bet FLD.  Question is if you are not betting every hand (or most hands) which one do you pick?  I get 53% betting most every hand in a shoe anyway.  This shoe gave me 60% - it happens.

So the question here is if you want to pick spots within the bias, where do you pick?  I'm thinking for the A's just be OLD until 2 LIAR, for the B's bet 2>3 and stop then cut after run ended; for the C's 2>3.  Just kind of a guess.  I would have gotten 4 more on this shoe if I was playing my normal because the 1's were on Player but. . . I was doing this.

(I don't know how to put photo in so go ahead anyone if you want.)

LOL how'd that happen?

File

?As somebody who has actually won a Baccarat tournament, it has nothing to do with bet selection, rather you are competing against other players, so this super secret method wouldn't work, because you have to look at your rivals chip stack, how much they are ahead bet accordingly sometimes on the opposite side of them if you are behind. ?     


?I can isolate one bias among other bias sequences and pinpoint out what will happen next or I can use a march to try to take advantage of all angles because I understand how to read random bits.
This means that I been working on solutions to play Baccarat Tournament and try to win the first price - there you have the serious money.?

______________________________________________________________________________________

Tournaments are a whole different game, usually a do or a die situation.  Here in the USA the tournaments used to be only open to the well known players by invitations of their casino hosts.  Did not matter if you where up or down in your winnings and standings, just based on your frequency of play and each host's top players, usually went from the largest buy-ins, highest average wagers and longest play times (which of course equaled every player's ratings, etc.).  Then at a tournament you would play a round of qualifying portions of shoes, usually 20 hands or so.  It was a do a die situation most times, like Lugi said, dependent upon the other player's good luck or bad luck.  Never enough time to space out your wagers and take time ti implement anything.  Hundreds of players all whittled down to one table of all the finalists.  All casinos had various ways of handling their payouts.  Some had a 1-7 place payout or a 1-5 or a 1nd, 2nd, 3rd, etc.  It was always a cash prize without an entry fee. 

Then a few years back, everything changed.  It varied from no cost for the best and heaviest players, to an actual qualifying type of tournament entry through on live floor play, etc.  Then the entry fees came about along with prizes drying up and promotion chips being issued in lieu of actual cash prizes.  It all changed.

But the bottom line is there is a limited amount of hands and a limited amount of time to play.  It is always dependent on what the other players will do first with the do or die situation or all in real quick and just hope you are getting the first few hands correct to really stack up the chips. 

Sorry, I just do not see the time factor in positioning oneself to take advantage of anything at almost every tournament I have ever seen. 

I'll second that, I had forgotten about the short shoe, as you say it's about 20 hands or so.

Quote from: Jimske on April 29, 2019, 08:51:27 PM
You mean me, right?  ;)

It's an attempt to capture the bias as per your defined states: A, B, C.  Reason is that lots of players play what they consider the bias.  Glen does as well but mums the word with that guy.

As everyone knows I play a lot of hands in a shoe.  I did here as well with full recognition that you are looking for certain spots within the bias.

I have posted numerous numerous threads about wagering.  IMO, and through your own admission, you read very little of what I have posted and at best, pick and choose.  That is kind of like desiring to learn how an author of anything that published a book about it, someone picks up the book and reads the first couple of pages, a few in the middle and the final page, then concludes rubbish or too long or does not pertain to me, etc., etc. 

But anyway, wagering in my gambling is different each time with no set scheduling.  Numerous triggers depending on the countless situations and presentments what is in front of me.  I have stated about + and - 10 to 20 counts, naturals, B or P consistently strong or weak within sections, Sections and Turning Points, and maybe 40 other topics concerning wagering. 

Furthermore, I strongly believe in the intangible as well and I might be wrong, but I do not think you do at all.  Which would be topics like emotions, psych and so on.  Once again, I have written extensively about those. 

You have chosen to combat and challenge countless times.  However, any long term, experienced player of Bac, IMO has upsides and downsides coupled with his own personal situation and play time, etc. 

To sit here in front of the screen, post and answer within a short thread, short-concise-#1-5, etc., to state definitely how I bet select to win, is impossible to do.  That would be a BeatTheCasino or Jay Silvo,  etc., system. 

I am sorry to state the above and it is certainly fuel for you to twist it a bit and find a way to post some sort of comment, that I have no clue how to play or I am bull poo-poo or something of the likes.  Which of course you have the right to post. 

Thank you, Alrelax/Glen.

Quote from: alrelax on April 30, 2019, 12:09:49 PM

To sit here in front of the screen, post and answer within a short thread, short-concise-#1-5, etc., to state definitely how I bet select to win, is impossible to do.  That would be a BeatTheCasino or Jay Silvo,  etc., system. 

I am sorry to state the above and it is certainly fuel for you to twist it a bit and find a way to post some sort of comment, that I have no clue how to play or I am bull poo-poo or something of the likes.  Which of course you have the right to post. 

Thank you, Alrelax/Glen.

What I have done on this thread is to conduct a rudimentary analysis of Sputnik March from his explanations of the three different series and how one MIGHT interpret that to make actual bet selections.  Instead of participating or adding to this discussion you have chosen to accuse me.

It seems to me you have conflated wagering and bet selection.  You also seem to assume that bet selection must be some mechanical system rather than a fluid ever changing condition dependent on each and every shoe.

Sure, I have continued to press you on selection AND you have stated that you would opine on selection.

It's a lot of nonsense that you cannot describe just one reason you have placed a bet.  Maybe you just don't want to.  So just say that instead of attacking me!

 

I have posted what I believe in, what I have found and what I subscribe to that has proved me profitable in my game.

Most of them are within my BLOG/Alrelax section and some are within the Baccarat room here.  I have spelled out in detail explanations and hows and whys. 

You have commented numerous times as to how you skim, read parts, read this or that off of one of my lengthy posts, etc.  That to me is disturbing and distracting as well as disrespectful in some ways. 

I stand by what I post. 

And also J, I have stated (but maybe you failed to read or understand my writing) many reasons I wager and what I have found.

Specifically the 1 of 10 to 10 of 10 Series, highlighted/sticky'ed on the first page of my Blog Room.

As far as your statement, It seems to me you have conflated wagering and bet selection.  You also seem to assume that bet selection must be some mechanical system rather than a fluid ever changing condition dependent on each and every shoe, I wholeheartedly agree with that.  BetSelection is not one item, trigger or reason alone. 

Hi everyone. Long time no post so here goes something from me :-

1. Decisions made in Baccarat tournaments are made on a different basis as alluded to by Glen. Yes you have to keep an eye on your fellow gamers and see their bets and count their chips. I don?t normally participate in tournaments but once awhile I do. I remember in one tournament with a first prize money of > US$1 million, I was in the semi finals. Only the top guy in each table would qualify for the finals. Coming into the last hand (I think only 8 hands are played in the semi finals), the top guy was betting on Banker which was what I was going to bet on. But if Banker won, I would still not qualify, so I put my chips (there are limits) on Player. Player won! And I qualified for the finals. And got soundly trashed there 🤣🤣
2. I also understand Glen?s position on explaining his bet selections because in each shoe there are various other intangibles. The momentum of the game, the presence of a drunk moron losing his pants off, a player on a hot winning streak making a choice different from what you were thinking, the sub charts etc etc. So its quite difficult to explain versus supposedly more mechanical approaches. For me, while the bet selection process is more subjective, my approach is to try to make the bet amount decisions more mechanical. For sure, no negative Martingale.
Cheers guys! God bless.

A reason is a reason Lungyeh.  I'm not asking him to explain every bet in the shoe. It doesn't matter to me whether he made a bet because he wanted to bet against a moron at the end of the table or if his wife had a lucky feeling. Everybody has to have a reason to choose an individual bet. All he has to do just pick out one shoe and explain why he bet that spot. Maybe he could explain why he bet two or three spots. What's so hard about that?

I think it's ridiculous to post a screenshot and say there was a lot of winning bets in first section of the shoe and not have a clue as to why all those bets were chosen. Was it luck? Does he use a Ouija board? Besides that, Glen did say that he was going to talk about some reasons.  Now all of a sudden it's impossible.

Maybe some brief explanations will help people decide how to choose bets?

Quote from: Jimske on May 01, 2019, 02:58:50 AM
Does he use a Ouija board?

Maybe his Golden Monkey tells him...

Quote from: Lungyeh on May 01, 2019, 02:17:47 AM
Coming into the last hand (I think only 8 hands are played in the semi finals), the top guy was betting on Banker which was what I was going to bet on. But if Banker won, I would still not qualify, so I put my chips (there are limits) on Player. Player won! And I qualified for the finals. And got soundly trashed there 🤣🤣

This is exactly what I did in the last hand of a final after scarping through the heat.  Waited to see which side the leading guy was going to bet, and bet the other side.  Him losing and me winning, meant I snatched the final from under his nose.  I got $5000 in play chips, which they let me bet both sides on a Baccarat table to turn into cash chips. Hopefully you got a runners up prize. 

Quote from: Jimske on May 01, 2019, 02:58:50 AM
It doesn't matter to me whether he made a bet because he wanted to bet against a moron at the end of the table

You mean he was betting against himself??

Fooled by Reality--Fooled by Desires

What is so sad, is that we really just fool ourselves. 

Be careful what you fail to check at the doors, as you walk through the entrance of the casino!  I have written about it before and specifically, I am talking about consciousness and reality.  I am not talking about being awake and alert, I am talking about remembering, being 100% conscious of and putting your knowledge and experience right there in front of you, recognizing them and paying extreme attention to them while you are playing.  Not an easy task.

The highest majority of the players sit down at the casino table, buy-in and then, 'game-on'.  Not much else really happens until the player begins to lose.  Then the emotional and the reactions come about.  Rather than being constantly pro-active, they become reactive to their deluded minds.  Sheer reactions to attempt damage control, getting even, recouping previous losses, trying to place themselves in another player's frame-of-mind and virtually everything except, playing the game the way it should be played. 

Problem being, as I see it, is that there are two different forms of, 'Probability', 'Variances' and most importantly, 'Dealing with our Ignorance'.  First of all, the highest majority of all players enter a new session with an attitude and belief that they have been there, done that and although handled too many sessions the, 'wrong way', they suddenly convince themselves that everything has changed and really nothing at all has.  When they win, they get more obnoxious, more de-tuned and more self-righteous than ever before.  Because they have all convinced themselves they are finally on the right track and that special time has come.  When really nothing at all did, they just failed to allow themselves to deal with their own ignorance.  They also coupled that with locking themselves into uncertainty failing to actually apply themselves to what is about to happen. 

Whatever you want to entitle the upcoming shoe presentments, 'Variance', 'Results', 'Randomness', etc., it will happen.  It does not matter one bit what side you are wagering on, what side you did not wager on or in fact, if you sat out and did not wager at all.  It will happen.  That is when the damage occurs the highest majority of the time.  Say a player believed what he read on a gambling message board or in his, 'elite pay-per-month internet club' of professional baccarat players that it is wiser to wager on 1's and 2's because they happen the most rather than streaks, patterns, trends and other presentments that also happen.  So here this player bought in with several thousand dollars and got into a wagering war with himself of going for 1's and 2's at the baccarat table.  Just about the same time he was doing that, the shoe presented 2 long streaks of say 8 to 12 Bankers in a row, followed by the same amount of Players in a row as well.  The person repeatedly wagered for the, 'cut' because of the proven statistical odds (The probability) that what just happened, should not have happened at all.  But it did.  And, it could have been one of several other shoe presentments such as, 1's and 4's, 2's and 6's followed by 3's and 5's with one long streak.  Countless other presentments that do come about. 

The damage happens when that player has just lost a straight $1,700.00 and has $300.00 remaining of his buy-in.  His mind is clouded, his vision is blurred and his frame-of-mind is extremely dangerous.  Now, he observed a player that caught the highest amount of the past 20 or so hands and won well over $10,000.00 with just a few hundred on the table, when he sat down.  That other person says something like, "Now the cut is coming, it has to because it was too strong", all the while pointing at the score board.  So, you are down the $1,700.00 or so, the guy that just won what you desired to and knew you could, is speaking and you are gullible.   Here is what you really do not realize, here is what really happens with 'Probability' and the computation of the odds of shoe presentments coming about in baccarat.   Probability is not a computation of the odds of making winning and losing hands based upon what has happened or based upon what has not happened.  It is actually, accepting the lack of certainty of your knowledge and dealing with the reality of your ignorance.  In other words, harsh and real words--you beat yourself, you talked yourself out of wagering what would have won.  Simple and done.  Of course, that is like saying you are unhygienic and physically unattractive and unpleasant to be around because you are simply gross.  But our brains will not allow us to really do that, even if it was factual and 100% true. 

Here, let me explain where I am coming from.  Outside of textbooks and casinos, probability and variance really never continually presents itself as a problem or something that constantly has to be figured out.  Yet, within a casino, it always does, 100% of the times we play.  Here is where it is complicated on one hand and yet, not really so.  IMO, there are really two areas that have to be realized and addressed.  1)  Randomness and Non-Randomness, and 2) Certainty and Uncertainty.  This is where 100 gamblers will have 99 varying methods to decipher, understand and convince themselves that they are on the right track and will soon be on 'easy-street'. 

Simply, 'randomness' is what the shoe will present, or the dice or the slot machine wheels, or anything else within a casino.  Randomness is not in any way purely mathematical, neither is non-randomness.  If you view randomness and non-randomness as skepticism, rather than attempting to apply and decipher it down to micro-managing levels mathematical interpretations, you will be far better off.  As well, 'probability'.  It is not in any way purely an engineering theorem and able to be broken down as well, you would be far better off viewing it as a type of applied skepticism. 

And the problem most all will not or ever admit, is that when they are wrong according to their methodical and probability deviant, they were merely taking the educated and best guess as to what should have won.  When they do wager and won, they build their persona into a larger and more destructive belief that they have it all figured out and that is when the real destruction can do greater damage to their play.  Basically, if you really do decide something with uncertainty that was in your belief decided upon with risk-based method, rather than ignorance or outside the textbook mathematical statistical variance, you will be much better off by far and large.  Because eventually your eyes will open, your frame-of-mind will realize and you will understand that you capitalized on visions, chance and opportunities rather than science, mathematical and discovering what the multi-billion dollar corporations wished you never did. 

The naysayers will label what I just attempted to lay out above, as saying, "being on the right side of luck and chance will only last for so long", etc.  Then they will always say, "If you really had something, you would be able to use it over and over and over again without failure, time constraint or losses".  Which is not true. 

Here, let me break it down a bit further.  Chance, being correct, taking advantage of an opportunity, etc., all might seem similar to saying, 'luck'.  But, in reality, since no one really knows with mathematical or scientific certainty, what presentments will ultimately come out of the shoe and in what order, mathematical and statistical formulas that define what wagering protocols should be, really do not matter.  Why?  Because when you are at the casino table, you are at a highly random environment with certain windows of opportunity that can be successfully taken advantage of.  Unlike the practice of medicine, engineering or anything else that requires the highest majority of correct results to originate from non-random and non-variant sets of protocols, determining the outcome.  And in those endeavors, knowing the protocols will award you the knowledge to have the correct answers.  It is virtually the opposite, when we are at the casino table. 

The whole other, 'half-way educated' group, maintains a firm belief that there is only a few types of plays that will profit from wagering and those are all elementary in their repetitive writings and one-liners.  They are very good at attempting to have everyone believe that there is actually only one or two ways to wager and everything else is 'false belief' by the gambler.  They insist that it is all non-rocket science and yet, while they actually will never actually divulge their 'correct and only' ways to properly wager, they really do put on a good show.  I would have to put them in the same league as to those women that actual curl up with a bowl of potato chips and soda and get lost in watching those old fashioned soap-operas on television.  Great entertainment, even losing yourself in 'make believe' but sorry pal--not reality by any means! 

However, what most people know in their hearts--but will never ever admit is that we are into the new-age of info sharing, instant everything and no need for, 'blood-sweat & tears' any longer.   It turns out that we aren't very good at distinguishing the knowledge we keep in our heads from the information we find on our phones or computers. As Dr. Wegner and Dr. Ward explained in a 2013 Scientific American Journal article when people call up information through their devices, they often end up suffering from delusions of intelligence. They feel as though, "their own mental capacities" had generated the information, not their devices. "The advent of the 'information age' seems to have created a generation of people who feel they know more than ever before", the scholars concluded, even though "they may know ever less about the world around them".  And, it is no different for the gambling crowd.  I read and researched on the internet, I know everything you learned over 20 or 25 or 30 years, etc., I know it all, so what? 

That insight sheds light on our society's current gullibility crisis, in which people are all too quick to credit lies and half-truths spread through social media by Russian agents and other bad actors. If your phone, tablet, I Pad, or laptop, has sapped your powers of discernment, you'll believe anything it tells you.  Which is reality.  It's your money, spend it the way you see fit and make yourself comfortable with all the fake reassurance that you give yourself by simply believing what is not true and what makes for 'good print', because in reality, that is all it really is.

(Shoe Start)>>P-P-P-P-B-P-B-B-P-P-P-P-B-P-P-P-T-B-P-P-B-P-P-B-P-P-P-P-P-B-P-P-P-P-P-B-P-B-B-B-B-T-B-B-B-B

P-P-B-B-T-P-B-P-P-B-B-P-B-B-P-P-B-P-B-T-B-B-P-P-P-B-T-B-B-P<<<(Shoe End)


4 Players
4 Players again
3 Players
5 Players
5 Players again
Then the 8 Bankers came out. 

Then the 8 Bankers after the 9/9 natural tie came out after the first 4 Bankers appeared;

Banker was extremely weak, hardly any naturals, hardly any 3rd card wins at least increasing their initial value;

To me when that tie appeared with the way it was going, the preceding yes---it was time for the Banker to come on strong as it was doing in the first 4 hands of that 8 hand little streak.  Coupled with the point that Banker only had a single two repeat and all the rest were single Bankers.  The first 4 Bankers of that 8 Banker repeat was 3 Naturals in there as well.  Also, it was getting close to a +20 count for the Players just prior to that Banker run coming out.  It was 27 Players and 9 Bankers.  Making it +18 Players.  It was very low ties as well.  To me, that is the time to get on the Banker after the 3rd Banker or most definitely once that 4th Banker came out. 

Very rarely and I mean rarely do shoes finish with greater than +20 B or P.

So, the shoe finished 31 Banker and 40 Player.  Under 10 is most often than greater than +10, but happens.  Of course greater than +14/15 mark late in the shoe, say hand 60 or better and even more rare, is that finishing near or greater than +20. 

Of course, there are other variables I would personally factor in, but for sake of keeping this shorter, there is a synopsis of one scenario that happened the night before last at the casino, where there were some pretty nice presentments appearing.

That was way too long for my attention span and time, way too much waffle.

Read the first paragraph and tuned out. What is confusing, is that you took all that time to type it out, yet have requested all your posts be removed??

I started playing online on Monday with a balance of about �750, yesterday my balance is;

[attach=1]

I'm averaging 100 units per session, in fact I over did it Wen and made 130u, yes  of course I've lost off the bat when I've first sat down at the table or playing online, sh1t happens.  I've lost against shoes, I lost against two back to back shoes last night, big deal.  Still finished with 100 units profit, took about 9 or 15, can't remember, about 35 mins per shoe, with less than 2 mins between shoes. but who's clock watching?

I'm already up today 30u, stopped to have something to eat and check "what's happening on the boards", now I'm back to it.

Byeeee

Quote from: Lungyeh on May 01, 2019, 02:17:47 AM
Hi everyone. Long time no post so here goes something from me :-

1. Decisions made in Baccarat tournaments are made on a different basis as alluded to by Glen. Yes you have to keep an eye on your fellow gamers and see their bets and count their chips. I don?t normally participate in tournaments but once awhile I do. I remember in one tournament with a first prize money of > US$1 million, I was in the semi finals. Only the top guy in each table would qualify for the finals. Coming into the last hand (I think only 8 hands are played in the semi finals), the top guy was betting on Banker which was what I was going to bet on. But if Banker won, I would still not qualify, so I put my chips (there are limits) on Player. Player won! And I qualified for the finals. And got soundly trashed there 🤣🤣
2. I also understand Glen?s position on explaining his bet selections because in each shoe there are various other intangibles. The momentum of the game, the presence of a drunk moron losing his pants off, a player on a hot winning streak making a choice different from what you were thinking, the sub charts etc etc. So its quite difficult to explain versus supposedly more mechanical approaches. For me, while the bet selection process is more subjective, my approach is to try to make the bet amount decisions more mechanical. For sure, no negative Martingale.
Cheers guys! God bless.

Re-Read this entire thread today and just wanted to bump it up with the quote above.

There are many intangibles in almost all live B&M Bac shoes, period. 

Play any system, play any stop loss, play any stop win, play any flat betting and they will all cost you everything in the long run, or at least in consistent play. 

Also remember, losing huge only happens in continued and continuous play where one flat bets and/or continuously is wagering larger sums of money with a bank roll instead of using a buy in in small proportion to his bank roll, etc.