Fellas, I'd suggest that you tread lightly when it concerns on-line betting.

In fact, you guys should have a look at the "forum.beathecasino" site and, in particular, the "look at this" thread in their public baccarat forum.  It sites an apparent cheating revelation at the very site that you guys are referencing in this thread.

Again, I'd think twice before committing any real dollars to rather phony on-line betting services.  'nuff said 'bout that....

Those thoughts are worth a heck-of-alot more than "half a cent", Beat-The-Wheel.

Anyone referencing a bet selection's "variance", "drawdowns", and "line waves" is a heck-of-alot more than "half-way" to creating their own superior bet selection process combined with a correlated money management plan.

Quote from: james on July 30, 2016, 06:35:19 PM
If no bet selection produces an edge, can progressions give an edge mathematically?

This is a most difficult question, James, with no real definitive answer.  Pardon my indulgence as I offer you mine:

The "mathites" will respond in the negative, claiming that since we're facing the negative house edge at each and every wager there exists no betting methodology (read: progression) that will effectively overcome it.

I must say that if, in fact, I concurred with that theory I would simply cease playing the game.

I am of the belief that progressions do alter our odds at this game.  But, that said, let me be very clear:  Not all progressions are created equally.

You see, linear progressions, to me, are a "no-no".  Linear progressions are how the majority are constructed; straight progressions followed strictly and based upon the very last betting outcome.  These are proven as losing propositions, usually because one unlikely but inevitable run of consecutive and/or clustered losses will eradicate any prior profits and, eventually, entire bankrolls.

BUUUTTT, subjective bet maneuvering (yes, you can label it a progression of sorts), based upon certain parameters and proven statistics of your bet selection's process(es), with the absolute necessity of "virtual bet" (read: "no-bet") inclusion, is an entirely different matter altogether.

To that savvy/astute player, it is quite possible (actually likely, in fact) that they will succeed in collecting on those slightly raised bets as they are implemented into their procedural betting plan.  And collecting on those slightly raised bets can effectively eradicate most prior losses; quite the opposite of those linear progressions that eventually only serve to eradicate prior wins.

But all of that takes alot of work to amass the necessary stats and a whole lotta patience and discipline to implement the end game.  Unfortunately, most visitors and yes, even most members of these sites seek a much easier solution to this most difficult casino game; alas, none exists.  You can only get out of this game what you're willing to put in; frankly, it works that way in life, as well.

I wish you all the very best of it.  Take care and stay well.

Ahhh, Beat-The-Wheel, NOW you're talking about the only true winning formula: VARIANCE. 

Yes, a stable bet selection process ALONG WITH these stats:

Average strike rate

Longest winning streak
Longest losing streak

Average winning streak
Average losing streak

And, last but certainly not least, the average "footprint" (read: w/l "patterns") of your bet selection process.

Armed with these stats, a bet selection process even as simple as this VDW could appear to you as GOLDEN.

Thank you for sharing the insight, Beat-The-Wheel.  Take care and stay well.

Quote from: Nickmsi on July 28, 2016, 10:45:13 AM
We now did over 261,000 spins and 82,000 placed bets and as you can see the Z-score doubled to a a whopping 5.

Both of these were flat bets and both had Stop Loss of (-2).

Cheers
Nick

Remarkable!  Great job, Nicksmi.

Moreover, the best statistic I see from your posted graphs is the fact that the strike rate actually CLIMBED from 50.6% at the 55K bet mark to 50.8% at the 82K bet mark. Very impressive, my friend; I dare say the best I've seen from a "mechanical" method.

Keep up the great work, Nicksmi; you're proving to be quite an asset to this forum.  Take care, and stay well.

Gotta agree with "MarkTeruya"s assessment here, fellas.

This is, after all, very much a "DBL"/"TBL" play when it's working, and, IMHO, there exists better ways for the savvy player to take advantage of same.

I'd prefer to "chart" and/or "measure" exactly how the singles (read: 1's) and the "three-hole" (read: 3's) are performing in each particular shoe (or portion thereof), and then base my betting accordingly.  I much prefer that methodology as opposed to the rather "betting blindly" approach that this "VDW" plan seems to offer.

Look, as MarkTeruya clearly pointed out, the "doubles (read: 2's) appear as its main nemesis.  Now, that said, in and of itself, it is rather important to both know and recognize any method's weaknesses, so you're already better off simply with that knowledge at hand.  However, to me, at least, having the 2's as a nemesis is a rather "iffy" proposition, as I've seen a plethora of shoes where the 2's and/or "doubles" were rather prevalent, and those shoes are going to cause much strain and grief here.

Tread lightly, my friends.

Wow....what's happening within this forum recently?

I mean, we've got a couple of forum members going on and on about "karma" and the ability (or, should I say, lack thereof) to simply "rub the spots" onto your cards in order to achieve your desired results.....

.....and then, even more disturbingly, we've got an esteemed member of the forum now offering for sale a mode of play....and labeled, supposedly, as a relatively safe one to boot....that requires "only" a 300-unit session buy-in.  My two cents on that:  Any mode of play that requires an enormous buy-in such as that is built to make pennies on the dollar when it works and an absolute "big bucks destroyer" when it doesn't....not to mention the obvious stress factor that naturally goes along with such insanity. 

I've always enjoyed this forum, but recent paths are that are leading to nowhere good could be its downfall.  Let's hope not.

I would like to wish a Happy New Year to all of our esteemed members and their loved ones, and offer a heartfelt prayer that this New Year 2016 sees us all in Good Health, Much Happiness, Safe and Protected, and Prosperous as well.  May God Bless all.

A broad smile across my face as I read of your success, Gerard711.  You deserve it, my friend, and Goodness Knows, you've earned it, as well.

Keep up the good work, and stay well.

Quote from: Jimske on November 30, 2015, 06:29:11 PM
How do you think Gr8 lost 250k at this game?

Good one, Jimske....you feel better about yourself now, do you?

What's your problem, Jimske?  When was it, exactly, that you've turned into this petty person that you are now?  I always knew you as a gentleman; I must say, I did not see this coming at all.  Surely not from you.  We go back a long way, a few forums ago, and I must say, I've never seen you act as you are now.  Very disappointing.....

You take care, my friend, and stay well.  I've no interest in your invitation to re-post in your "Betting Every Hand" thread, only to see you delete it at your whimsy.

Quote from: Jimske on November 30, 2015, 02:45:15 AM
FYI  I deleted posts on "Betting Every Hand" to remove posts I considered off topic.  You want to talk about something else - start your own thread.

(Sidenote:  I felt the absolute necessity to "quote" Jimske's post just above, for fear that he'd delete it in the near future.  Shame that I have to look at you in that negative light, Jimske, but your recent erratic behavior leaves me no choice.)

So, you deleted my post in your "Betting Every Hand" because your considered it "off topic"?  Is that right?  The gist of my post was about my philosophy regarding this game (I'd duplicate it here, but, alas, you'd only delete it again...why waste my time?), both bet selection- and money management-wise.  Absolutely relevant to your "Betting Every Hand" thread, Jimske, and you know it.

No, we both know the real reason that you deleted my post and Gizmotron's positive response to it.

You're a small, petty man Jimske, whose only response was to hit the delete button in order to feel better about yourself.

The delete button is meant for the trolling and the abusive posts/posters; it is not there for you to pick and choose which posts make you feel better or not; for that is a personal issue within yourself, and it speaks volumes about you that you chose to serve your own pettiness as opposed to the majority of our members that enjoy poignant and meaningful posts.

Shame on you....

Keep up the good work, Walter.

I find this statement of yours, "what dilemmas players have when winning with a losing systems", rather interesting and thought-provoking.  It just happens to be the crux of the argument between those that play the game, for real, and those that simply look at the "negative expectancy numbers" as simply insurmountable.

My play could be considered, just as I suppose is most everyone's, as at least partially "mechanical" as well.  I mean, after all, I do happen to look for the same things, the same triggers, at each and every shoe and/or session.  I can see where one could look at that as a bit "mechanical" in nature; although it does bear mentioning that I certainly do incorporate many "subjective" notions inside of my over-all play.

So, with that all said, Walter, are we, in fact, really winning with some sort of mechanical play, which, by all things that are holy to those "mathites" (read: the house edge enthusiasts), simply cannot be true?  How is it that we can actually "beat the math" over the long term?  Or, might the better question be:  Can we?

If one were to ask me, I'd say, yes, we can.  I've posted enough over the years about my Player's Edges, so there's no need to repeat them here.  But I would simply say that by proper (and by "proper" I mean consistent, patient, and disciplined) utilization of those afore-mentioned Player's Edges one can turn their "negative" into our "positive".

So your "dilemma" statement regarding "winning with a losing system"; frankly, I think that has alot to do with the player that is utilizing it.  In short, for some, there simply mightn't be much of a dilemma at all.

Stay well, and continued successes.

Started my vac today, I am driving to AC this morning and will be there through Sunday....we'll converse again next week.

Quote from: Tomla on April 12, 2015, 05:19:37 PM
now what bet placements lead to more double wins ? WW

Hello, Tomla, I trust all is well with you, my friend.

I honestly can't answer the question that you've posed, but I can tell you what I look for:  Dominations.

The majority of doms are ripe with double wins, even the most minor doms, such as:

P P B P P B...a rather minor P-dom, but, nonetheless, betting for P two consecutive times after the B appearance will get you those 2 wins; and, again, that's but a minor dom example.

Most any dom, just by its very nature because of the dominance of that one side, will suffice to evoke your double wins.

When I choose my parlay play, it is most-assuredly due to the appearance of my dom trigger.