You can win with either 'side'. And that's the tuff part, like I said for the novice and the seasoned.
BTW I was not only referring to jackpot type shoes. But, your mind cannot easily adapt to wagering for chops, 1s-2s-3s, cuts after ties and/naturals, etc., etc., if you are into strong clumping, streaks and side bets/bonuses and so on and vice versa.
1) Correct up to a point. Very rare shoes produce what I name'em as 'jackpot' shoes. Miracles happen the same as nightmares happen.
'Sooner or later our ship will come and when it does we better not to be at the airport ' ..."
I agree. However, many players won't have the patience to wait for the 'jackpot' shoes/when they are presented with a jackpot shoe will not jump on it fast enough. Yet the same players will leap fast /headfirst onto the 'Titanic' shoes. As albalaha said many times in his posts: We will see near equal of both. It's the variance we must navigate (pos and neg).
This reminds me of what my GRREATTT Uncle Confucius once told me: "Grasshopper, it's not how fast you win, it's how well you win fast."
Last post by AsymBacGuy - September 25, 2022, 08:30:52 PM
Hi KFB! I can't agree more on your words!
If people claim to win constantly by always (or only) wagering Banker side, they should win constantly by always wagering Player side: the difference is just a miserable worse 0.18% ROI. In fact ask them to let you know what's their Banker winning percentage: to get a long term advantage the wp must be 51.3% or higher. At Player side it should be 50.1% or higher.
Obviously in the short term such values could be misinterpreted as a kind of 'magic skills', in reality it's just a chance factor.
Neither a statistical long term study made on the slight math propensity to get more B rich patterns than P rich patterns will help them (or anybody).
The only way to win constantly at this game is trying to catch the 'actual' card distribution features that are surely dictated by several levels of asymmetry (about this topic in general I recommend the reading of N. Taleb books).
This has almost nothing to share with common strategic lines as 'following trends', unless we have strictly determined what a 'trend' really is and what are the limits of intervention along any shoe dealt.
Last post by alrelax - September 24, 2022, 11:56:56 PM
But to the highest majority at the tables it sure does. Either to 'show off' to the others, or to attempt to satisfy their own ego that they have it all figured out, etc. Winning is money and it certainly spends the exact same way whatever the reason it was that caused you to wager.
Camaraderie is one thing among a couple/few players and getting on to a win-streak and clearly pumping up your wagers as well as your A-Alpha energy is another positive thing, but all of those that attempt control of the table because of their egotistical voodoo to show off and fuel their sheer guesses while continually pointing to the score board explaining why such and such has to happen, is total upcoming negativity by the boat loads about to set in.
The keys to winning are really narrowed down to two things.
1). What wins this session/shoe/section probably won't, might to a limited manner, or definitely will not in the following ones.
2). Anything, including the presentments you have never experienced can and will occur and win.
Remember, at least try to anyways the above two things because baccarat is a game of presentments that make appearances as well as disappearances. The tricky part is there is no balance, rhyme or reason as far as the statistical definable number between the appearances and the disappearances.
Last post by KungFuBac - September 22, 2022, 05:06:01 PM
Many thx Asymbacguy for your elaborate answers to my Q up above.
Many gold nuggets:
Well, there's a 7.3% general math propensity toward 4-card hands than 5-card hands formation. Obviously the main factor orienting 4-card hands is the naturals apparition (34.2% vs 3.6%). And again more obvious is the fact that shoes rich of 8s and 9s make more probable this possibility. ...
yet a fair amount of 5-card hands go toward Player side, think about standing or natural P points or asymmetrical spots where third cards help the P with Banker standing.
Do not forget that B winning hands are payed 0.95:1 and that a fair amount of 5-card hands (nearly 40%) are strongly favorite (at various degrees) to win the P side at the start.
It's the same reason working at asymmetrical spots when the third card instructs the Banker to stand while Player has a winning hand.
Maybe in the future Banker will win by standing points but the asymmetrical spots are somewhat consumed as they are limited in their appearance. With the decisive difference that P standing points get a 40% probability to happen whereas asymmetrical spots have a 8.6% probability to happen, that is 4.65 times more likely to show up.
I agree 100% on this last one. Im always astonished at how many players will state or suggest their "go to" method is to always bet Banker. Its funny that in past couple months I've had two acquaintances that play poker and related games(with above-avg skill) on a semi-professional level come up to me and state: I've got this friend or brother,...etc that makes a killing playing Bac and he always bets Banker continuously and everytime, ("and he wins big,makes a living,makes huge money...etc), as if they are trying to impress me knowing that I mostly play Bac. They lose me as soon as they state : "he only bets Banker everytime".
Last post by alrelax - September 21, 2022, 10:26:16 AM
QuoteThx alrelax--Well done. I really like shoes such as the one in #16. Only two ties through hand 29 or so. Both sides holding on a consistent basis. P turned at 2iar for a six streak,...etc.
99% of the key to thousands of dollars of profit in the shoe is following what it is being presented and not attempting to change it.
Sounds simple, yet so many make it complicated.
I watch people I have known for years win all kinds of great profit in half a shoe and then the remainder of the shoe or the following shoe or shoes, they give it back and lose 5 to 10 times additional buy-ins attempting to change what each shoe is presenting.
The story goes on.........however most holds true and the story does not change.