Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - Albalaha

#1
I had a compilation of all books, mostly soft and scanned copies about gambling in general and roulette and baccarat in particular. I got opportunity to talk, email, chat etc to many known authors. I must say, 99% were telling same story and 1% had some innovation worth reading and learning. If you want to have fun with gambling stories etc, you can read it like a novel. It won't offer much. You will get much more discussions, debates, ideas and techniques on these forums than 100s of gambling books combined.
#2
Baccarat Forum / Re: Bac help please.
August 23, 2021, 05:14:01 AM
Why play Tie or any outside bet? You can earn with any bet but it is one of the worst choices. I have played Ties enough. Nothing beats EC bets. It may excite you momentarily but will require bigger bankroll and even bigger patience to extract money from playing "Tie". Could go very frustrating at times. Even with 9 to 1 payout, it has 4.85% house edge instead of 14.40% in 8 to 1 payout but still it is far worse than Banker and Player bets. Playing tie could be compared to a "corner bet" of roulette.
      You will find a few online casinos paying 9-1 on Tie by a simple search.
#3
AsymBacGuy / Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
August 14, 2021, 08:24:34 AM
QuoteQ1: Does your method win proportionally more for surviving additional SDs of - Variance? e.g., Would your net earnings for surviving a -5SD shoe vs a -3SD shoe be 5:3 ?  or other ratio?   

Answer:It could be either way. It all depends upon the stretch of the ugly phase as well as its shape.

    Q2: Another way of viewing it since you do a negpro: Im obviously guessing one needs a proportionality of more chips to survive a -5SD shoe vs lets say a -3SD shoe (e.g., Chips needed for -5sd=50 and chips needed for -3sd=30,...etc or whatever ___________) ?
     So my question: Is this(#chips required) somewhat proportional and a f(x) of the number of -SD one chooses to survive. If yes give an example.


Answer: Definitely. Chips required to survive 5 SD has to be more than that is required to handle 3 SD. What kind of question is this? Fuel required to go 100Kms has to be more than that for going 10Kms but again as in the case of car moving on a busy street and on a highway things vary.

#4
AsymBacGuy / Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
August 12, 2021, 05:06:24 AM
Mathematicians could not succeed to beat baccarat due to inability to think rationally apart from thinking straight mathematically. No amount of mathematical progression be it arithmetic or geometric could beat the billions of probability baccarat or any other game of chance could offer in terms of Wins and losses. One size fits all type things could not work. I read an interview of Prof Thorpe who did beat blackjack. He said even if you have a billion chips you can not guarantee win. He wasn't wrong or Einstein wasn't wrong in their conclusions. Simple math has nothing to offer in beating a game of chance without having infinite chips. Martingale or Fibonacci or Labouchere can beat any session mathematically but the amount of chips they might seek in the most adverse periods make them impractical to be used. However, there are number of ways this problem could be solved. I have created a few money management that can survive even 5 SD below mean without seeking thousands of chips and win thereafter in average times, without seeking clumping wins. Anybody can achieve that thinking logically too, apart from thinking mathematically.   
#5
AsymBacGuy / Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
July 19, 2021, 05:34:59 AM
QuoteBaccarat is not a game of math results, baccarat is a game of card distributions favoring this or that.

This is like a revelation !
           I thought it is a totally random game based upon mathematical calculations and house edge and payouts slightly favoring casinos. I never knew that it was meant to do card distributions. How about roulette? That is meant to teach how a ball moves over a rim and gets into 37/38 pockets? Might be to educate people about laws of motion.
#6
AsymBacGuy / Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
July 18, 2021, 06:23:41 AM
Hmm. So this topic is nearing conclusion finally:
QuoteHence imo the Big Road is one of the worst successions to look for to get hints before betting.
In fact our data say that the probability to be long term ahead by betting even selectively B and P hands is zero.
I'm not rot ruling out the possibility that some very experienced players can be ahead even by betting BP hands but I guess it's a very remote probability.

Then what should make baccarat as a beatable game?
[/b][/color]
Only way is a sensible money management that is dynamic enough to handle the worst with least damage(if it loses everything that it won in good or average times, it is not a money management at all)and win thereafter without seeking clumping or compensatory wins. All the rest approaches are like chasing a mirage. It will always appear very close to reach while it is nowhere actually.
      No betselection will win by itself betting flat or with positive progressions.
#7
XXVV,
            What is your prediction for these crypto by the end of this year, pricewise average rates:
1. BTC
2. LTC
3. Binance
4. Ripple
5. Doge

             Will Doge touch USD 1 or it will sink to lower level?
Thanx
#8
Quote I agree it(pospro) may not win to infinity trials.

It doesn't win average shoes as well. It needs better than average times to win. I do not say, streaks do not come but if we see the overall impact of any of your favorite positive progression, it won't win a net profit, most likely after any 10 random shoes. Let us all have your favorite positive progression here to be evaluated.

QuoteI also like that no casino rules that require us to play 100% of our wins back through the casino.

They do not ask us to gamble at all. We do that and lose our money too apart from any coincidental win that we got from casino. This is true for 99% gamblers. We lose money in the endeavour of winning more and not for any guilt of winning money from casino.

Quotenegative progressions if used cautiously could surpass over 10 millions spins test on roulette while I did it with Ophis.   

     that's impressive--Im guessing it was a same-side wager(e.g., black or red?)

         I did this 8 years back with one of the finest programmers on any forum, Ophis. We surpassed all data that we could put our hands over. Over 10 millions spins of roulette were beaten, mercilessly. We bet all sorts of bets from EC to single number. It was a controlled negative progressions, kind of brute force attack on all bets possible in roulette. You can feel it here:
https://betselection.cc/index.php?topic=808.0

Quote*Side Note: I have only played one shoe in my lifetime across thousands of shoes that neither P or B showed 3 in a row same-side wins(ppp or bbb). That particular shoe only had one 3-consec chop(near the end).

Well, probability to get a ppp or bbb is 1/8 roughly so in 72 hands of a shoe, one should get it 9 times averagely. You said you saw only one shoe of such kind where no PPP or BBB occurred, well it is actually rare and remote to happen frequently but if you get one or two such wins in a shoe, it should not be enough to get you a net profit.[/size]
#9
Negative progressions might not be as negative or imprudent as a martingale or labouchere. Rather, negative progressions are based on more realistic premise, i.e. expecting lesser wins than losses while positive progression either presupposes more wins than losses or looks for clumping wins. If you simulate any so called positive progression in the long run, it can't win there while negative progressions if used cautiously could surpass over 10 millions spins test on roulette while I did it with Ophis.
         A hybrid progression meant to cater all types of variance and average results is the most prudent way to play, in my humble opinion and experience.
#10
Hmm. The board looks modern and classy both. :applause:
#11
AsymBacGuy / Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
May 27, 2021, 02:48:04 AM
QuoteThink what can do two players who have found out that the game is beatable by flat betting and the other one by getting a long term profit even when the W/L ratio is shifted toward the right.

    Nope. Both can not work together as they are based upon altogether different premises. I consider baccarat to be absolutely random and absolutely unrelated with card points, hands number, dealer, dealt/burnt cards so far etc. If these considerations can work to help even slightly in predicting outcomes, we do not need an MM strategy, at all. If all these combined gives us even 1% edge against the house, we just need to keep betting the biggest unit fearlessly. With an edge, we will win from casino as easily as casino wins from us. Simple.
I must congratulate you for having an edge against the house in a "so called random" game. Momentary drawdowns should not deter you.
#12
AsymBacGuy / Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
May 24, 2021, 06:29:36 AM
Asym,
          While I can argue on many aspects but am sure about one thing. To lose with Player or even Banker bet (banker bet is not destined to get a net win either), in the long term house presupposes three things:
1. Flat betting will be done, which is bound to lose as you can not find any logic to get more wins than losses in Player, in the long run or way to offset house fees if you choose Banker.
2. Crazy progressions will lose even more and faster
      and I firmly believe that both are set in stone. Only difference one can make is doing either of these two:
1. Somehow manage more wins than losses in number to offset the house edge and house fees and win flat bet;or
2. Somehow win more money and lose less despite more losses than wins(in numbers) and that too without any order.

                      I spent thousands of hours in trying both and personally experienced that I should strive in latter. If you can do something to better both or even in one, it is heavenly. Everything else is empty futile attempt. We can define and code and simulate all sane ideas whereby we can play manually and there is no room for guessing whether what we are thinking should work or not.
#13
AsymBacGuy / Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
May 19, 2021, 01:34:37 PM
No way baccarat is beatable by thinking that results are made by independent sym situations or, even worse,  that one side should be constantly more probable than the other one no matter what.

Banker is always more probable(very marginally though) due to drawing rules. Do you doubt that?

If one had discovered a way to beat baccarat by always wagering B side, well it means he'll be able to get the same counterpart positive results by always wagering P side by a worse -0.18% long term profit.

I m not sure if I could understand your statement in red in the last statement of yours. How will one wager P side by a worse 0.18% long term profit? It seems you could not properly word your feelings here. We can't bet a loser bet and still win. Whatever we need to do is in the winner bet itself. Wagering B side is not advantageous enough as the edge it has over Player is negated by the house fees. Say one gets 51 wins on Banker in 100 trials(Ties ignored), he will still lose 0.55 chips, while Player will be at -2. If house fees is removed from Banker with the same drawing rules, playing Banker would be a sure shot way to win in the long run.
I mean that anyone claiming to beat baccarat by always wagering B side, should get the same positive results by always wagering the P side, now decurted by a 0.18% lesser edge.

Do not tell us that -1.06% vs -1.24% becomes a decisive factor about how to get long term wins, as the huge factor to be overcome is -1%.

Here I absolutely agree with you. There could be way to dodge the house edge on both Banker as well as Player alongwith momentary variance against us but that is where most of the Players get silenced.

I personally prefer betting Player and not at all concerned with the so called 0.18% disadvantage as in progressive betting, betting Banker has its own set of drawbacks.
#14
AsymBacGuy / Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
May 12, 2021, 09:15:52 AM
QuoteThat's now that so called math experts must put their knowledge in their a.sses, even though they can easily opine that no matter what, our bets are getting a money return lower than 1.
           I DO NOT KNOW WHICH BOOK OF MATH SAYS SO. UNLESS WE ARE DESTINED TO LOSE EVERY HAND A PARTICULAR SUM OR WE KEEP BETTING FLAT 1 UNIT ALWAYS, HOUSE EDGE CAN NOT BEAT US DECISIVELY. When I simulated over 10 millions spins of roulette with Ophis with a progression based betting and beat that too, I understood the hollowness of such pseudo math claims.
          Take the case of martingale and any played session in the world. It will beat each. Did martingale change math? No. Same goes with labby and fibbo. There is no answer of this with any so called math genius. Math can beat the randomness and house advantage both but table limit or bankroll will stop it this way (but math is math). I went ahead and did it mathematically (with a dash of logic) within playable bankroll and table spread. I will surely win, in the long run, even if I get 6SD negative variance, meanwhile.
#15
I disagree to the basic idea that theoretical knowledge is inferior to practical knowledge, specially in the context of gambling. Gambling is not something that can be perfected with practice. It is not a driving skill or boxing where one can say that practice makes a man perfect. A person having sound knowledge of probability and other mathematical gambling theories will be far from the fallacies and wrong expectations and will be at lesser harm than those who are oblivious of them and only have "experience" to play in casino for years. Unless someone's experience gives him some skill, he is always inferior to someone who has good theoretical knowledge about gambling.
            All known big successful gamblers be it Jagger or Pelayo or Eudemonic Pie or Edward Thorpe, all could beat casinos with their theoretical knowledge and none could do it so with experience with practice.