Greetings Alrelax

on: March 15, 2021, 05:52:50 am »Insert Quote
"...More so in the first half of the shoe then the second half. And more so with the player side than the banker side. But don't take that for players side only, because it will happen to the banker side as well, just more-so with the player side.

Particularly the prelude will be extremely choppy or very much equal for a pretty large section..."
[/b]

In simplistic terms do you feel its partially because starting on the first draw(without knowing burn cards) and obviously unknown order, that all the GOOD cards for Player are still  100%  avail in the shoe, only at this exact moment(GOOD meaning cards more likely to prevent P from drawing 3rd card)?? Coupled with the slight P advantage of having first dibs and said GOOD cards. Obviously after P draws , then B might  make same proclamation depending on the card drawn by P. This very slight and briefly enjoyable stage for P immediately starts diminishing, though minutely,  from the first card onward. Yes?


b]Particularly the prelude will be extremely choppy or very much equal for a pretty large section..."
[/b][/color]
Do you agree this prelude(chop/equal) is also often seen immediately after the streaks are observed. Yes?

Thx as always.



All the best,

Thx Albalaha. I appreciate your various threads/sharing of research.


It seems much of your earlier research(e.g., >=3 years ago) focused more on Roulette et al EC games vs the recent attention to Bac(just my perception).

Q1: Do you indeed mostly focus on Bac?
Q2: Was it the lower H.E. vs say Roulette et al? or the overall outcomes profile for Bac that seemed a better fit for your research?  Other?
Q3: In earlier years did u also pursue other EC games while hunting for the HG?


I frequently see/hear statements from players referencing Bac b/p  in comparison with Craps Dp/Pl. I recognize that both sets
of outcomes are considered similar re: H.E. However, in the example of craps i do NOT see a comparable profile for PL vs DP re: overall outcomes profile as well as streaks. Though Bac B vs P very similar, IMO.


Thx in advance for your answers/addendum thoughts.

Happy Pi Day To All,

3/14/21

Thx AsymBacGuy .

"...Tomorrow our "bac walker" example..."

Looking forward to the Bac Walker

Thanks AsymBacGuy. Excellent last two posts/thread.

"Third card/s, besides the important asymmetrical hand factor, are just there for entertainment and to confuse things."


"Any random succession must provide independent results on every step of the original sequence and on every other possible subsequence derived from the original one, that is for each step whatever considered and for every random walk considered a x result will be proportionally equal to the expected probability."

I like that sentence.

All the best,

Thx Albalaha

I appreciate your replies. I did indeed notice a couple years back(2-3 maybe) you seemed to have hit a higher gear.
I continue to find gold nuggets in your essays (in your recent/as  well as older posts) as all your time/research is much appreciated.


My great grancester Confucius once say: " Do not seek all the answers at once, for a path is formed with first stone."


All the best,

Hi Albalaha

Thx for your time/reply to my inquiry. I will email u by the weekend as I play bac most days mon-fri. and don't return home til early a.m. ,....etc.

"...You might be new to forum world(or might be there with some other name).."

     This is only bac forum ever joined. I started reading this forum about 8 months ago. I've briefly skimmed through a few in past 10-15 years.
"While reading through some of your posts here I recently realized I had actually read some of your writings (under the Albalaha name) from about 2012--not sure when/where I had copied them from."
You were doing similar studies back then 


All the best,

Thx AsymBacGuy
Your last two posts have stimulated a couple thoughts/questions that I will follow up on within a couple days.

Im in the process of reading several of your back posts/threads (not all 1000  , yet) and may find some of the answers there.


All the best,

Thx  AsymBacGuy for your elaborate response.

This is good: "And naturally whenever an asymmetrical hand do not come out within a range validly surpassing the math expectancy, no Banker bet is EV+."


"...We'll bet toward getting at least one of the 1-1, 1-2, 2-1 patterns at Banker side, thus our play won't be affected by the vig as our bets will be placed only at Player side.
Anytime a 1 or 2 comes out at B side, we'll bet toward those three patterns. We'll stop the bet until we'll get one unit profit per shoe by utilizing a steady 1-2 progression.
. .."

     Can you clarify re: stop the bet until one unit of profit per shoe...etc.

Thx

All The Best,

Thx Albalaha

3. Bet limit on EC bet should be atleast 1-100. Although one seldom need to bet over 10 units.

My perception is that you work diligently to slow the acceleration of wager size(not how to increase wager size as many approaches seem to pursue). I hope your fine thread continues to shed some light on this issue.

I've designed a few methods of what I call periodic or perpetual type wagering methodologies that may or may not be similar to your examples.
I found the most difficult problem was(is--as im still working on it) how to handle the ratio of wager size change to buyin change. Though one wouldn't think at first glance that a continuous micro increase to the wager could compound so rapidly--I found that keeping this ratio optimally sized was the key to buyin survival(Easier said then done).

In other words: If wager grows too fast then buyin can get wiped out within fewer decisions. If wager grows too slow then buyin doesn't grow at a sufficient rate to handle future volatility...etc.

I've attempted at bac though mostly at craps utilizing a keyhole approach as I wagered only one spot and one spot only(DC3 wager), so for example after a comeout(dp), it was sent out on the fourth(dc3) spot. My main reason for choosing craps was the option for a $1 increment change.  One approach that has endured /performed reasonably well was starting at $25 and increasing/decreasing $1 at certain stages, triggers,as a f(x) of SD, # of decisions,....etc. However, regardless of trigger(s) the main issue kept returning: wager sizing: how to slow down growth yet continue to grow, be at the highest level when a pos run presented,...etc.

I will elaborate  more later on as I don't want to sidetrack your thread/ Im sure I will have additional questions as we move further into your post.

All the best,

Thx Asymbac

Your statement above:
"...As there's no way a perfect key card balancement is going to act along any shoe dealt (even though many not key card situations can produce strong deviated spots), we can infer that most part of random walks are not going to form back to back outcomes totally insensitive to the previous card distribution..."

In the following example: How is your decision tree designed? In other words what trumps all the thoughts/ideas running through your mind if you were required to wager the very next hand following: P:89 B:44 Bwins; P:98 B:35 Bwins.  So obviously P is getting the cards it wants, yet B is winning with the cards it wants/needs. What say you?

I know there could be dozens of things to consider. Im asking what would typically be at the top of your list that would over rule all the lower level considerations on the decision tree.

Thx in advance,

Thx Albalaha

re: #6 : "Stop Loss doesn't Help..."

Do you suggest a Stop Win? (e.g., % of BI, % of bankroll, % of monies or #bets wagered that session...etc, none of the above?)


Looking forward to part 2

Congrats AsymBacGuy on your 1000 post above. 

This is a good thread /subtopic and I like the analogy with the outcomes profile in craps. I think you will agree there are many similarities when comparing craps to bac. A couple huge differences too(as u point out one above re: dependence)

I look forward to  your next post in the series.

The new /improved version looks great.
Especially  like the new color scheme, layout,...etc .

Job well done/ thx to all involved.