Quote from: 21 Aces on December 02, 2015, 02:18:48 AM
BBB = +30
BBP = +10
BPB = +20
BPP = -10
PBB = +20
PBP = 0
PPB = +10
PPP = -70

Are these the outcomes you are referring to?

Nope, because here you get a +10 profit (minus the vig) instead of zero.

as.

Quote from: soxfan on December 02, 2015, 02:09:18 AM
The answer to yer question is the resounding NO for most cats. No discipline, no balls, no bankroll, and no shot. It's as simple as that, hey hey.

as. 

Quote from: Lung Yeh on December 02, 2015, 01:09:59 AM
Now I have my own board?? (Courtesy of Jimske?? Thanks).

Well, after every loss, I shut my mind and move on. Make money from my businesses, sell assets and come back again. Playing baccarat makes me happy. I often console myself when I lose that it might as well be some of my business partners or management screwing up and losing me money too. Same thing except that in baccarat I lose the money myself.

I told myself the last trip will be the LAST trip if I lose. But I often lie. To myself. So I am going to try again. And I am working out with aymbac on the Asian trip. Just to let the forum know that the offer did not die off. But we (Asymbac and me) will have to agree on further disclosure in this forum. Truth is some of us here have no tolerance for different opinions and approaches and are quite vocal, dismissive and condescending to those who have different approaches.

God bless.

Thanks for the confidence.

If we'll ever meet us you won't be disappointed. :-)


as.




   


 

So there are two only possible situations to be long term winners:

a- we have found some long term EV+ situations;

b- we are able to control the negative expectation by a MM procedure.

The a point is easy assessable: we run several shoes to see if what we're betting will get the best of it itlr. If this is the case our only worry will be about properly controlling the variance.

The b point is more intricated, depending on what we're betting, the betting frequency and how our MM will be built. Now the variance will be a more severe factor as we cannot rely upon any kind of edge.

Since it's widely known that it's impossible to get some EV+ situations, we have to work on the MM subject.

Denying the opportunity to get certain EV+ spots means that every hand will be 50/50 placed. So there's no point to utilize a trend following strategy or taking advantage of a RTM effect or something else.

Hence, every player admitting no EV+ spots' existence and yet stating he's a long term winner must give a decisive role to certain MM procedures.

We see that following trends, no matter how sophisticated will be the procedure involved, won't get us any advantage, otherwise we must imply that trend following by itself is a strategy capable to get an edge over the house.

It's true that some trend following strategies are better than others (think about playing for P singles and doubles or toward the B streaks' formation), but itlr such strategies won't get us any advantage.

Thus almost every bac player must give a decisive role to the MM subject.

Well, common knowledge teach us that there's no way to overcome 50/50 propositions by a mere MM procedure.
This statement is 100% correct.

Soon or later, any MM procedure will encounter a 4 or 5 sr negative SD destroying any carefully studied MM method.

So we're back to the initial problem. Without any kind of edge we cannot be long term winners.

Goos news are that the definition of edge might be wide.

For example, an edge could be to know that some events are restricted into "human" terms, of course more limited than the above 4-5 sr deviation value.

If we know that a given opposite outcome cannot be produced by ratios higher than 4-5 sr SD we should be in good shape.

A 4 sr deviation is any "fight" deviation between two opposite events capable to get a 0-16 ratio (and proportional spots).

Surely we'll cross such deviation on mere BP gap ratios, but the more we restrict our term of intervention (complexity of patterns) the lower will be our "gaps" even if we test millions of shoes.

A vulgar example is when we are trying to watch at 16 B singles in a row or 16 P streaks in a row.
I bet that you'll encounter more 16 B or P in a row than the above situations. 

Of course streaks are more restricted by an obvious "card finiteness" issue, yet you won't encounter more shoes getting all streaks on P side than on B side.
At the same time, any long consecutive single succession will invariably be longer on the P side than on the B side.

In the short terms the game appears to be equal, sometimes unexpectedly shifted on the unfavorite side.

That's why we have to let the time to work in our favor.
The same thing the house is hoping for, for opposite reasons.

as. 

It would be an awesome accomplishment to make a living playing baccarat at casinos' expenses. After all winning at baccarat seems to be an easy task, we ought to be right just slightly above the ratio of 50/50 WL propositions (vig considered on B wagers). In the short run, that's true.

So if in this right moment every bac player in the world will bet to get just a single B hand wagering three hands by a simple martingale (1-2-4), we know for sure that the vast majority of players will be ahead as any combination of 3 hands will contain at least a B hand more often than not.
Indeed BBB, BBP, BPB, BPP, PBB, PBP, PPB sequences are overcoming as a whole the "enemy" PPP pattern by a higher 7/8 degree.   
Even if this situation won't be true by variance issues, we know that very soon "3 hands" patterns containing at least one single B hand will show up more often than not.

To get an idea of what I'm talking about, let's run 10k of such propositions assessing the results.

We are 100% sure that wholly considered (10k is a decent sample) players trying to get a single B on three attempts will be ahead over the house.

Building a paradoxically worldwide team, we know that utilizing such simple strategy we'll have the best of it, meaning that every player wagering B on 3 attempts will get at least a single B more often than not, getting a profit.

Trying to state otherwise is a sort of bighornshit, it's sufficient to run 10k contemporary 3-hands patterns and evaluate the results, no matter how is the chosen point of attack.
A further obvious proof is that B streaks are longer than P streaks, P singles are prevalent than B singles, P doubles are more likely than B doubles and so on.

In a word, a possible infinite team wagering B side on 3 consecutive hands by a martingale betting will get the best of it, meaning we'll get a profit.

Of course such more likely worldwide profit won't be 50/50 proportionally placed, as any winning hand must pay the 5% tax.

Therefore if any bac player of the world will adopt this style of betting itlr, he/she will be caught by the vig burden more and more erasing his/her short term advantage.

Attention, we are not talking about the ROI,  we're're talking about the probability to win.

That's why casinos like to let us betting a lot of hands.

Obviously, the more we bet the more we fall into the "random" world and we know that a random system cannot be beaten by any means. Not accounting that our expectation will be lower and lower in direct proposition of the amount of our bets.

Notice that if baccarat will be spread like a "casino war" game, we'll be 100% sure to be long term winners providing to be able to bet every side of the action (at casino war we can't, since we cannot bet the house side). And this is just a card distribution topic without any asymmetrical factor besides the house vig on ties.

The fact that itlr some dispositions are more likely than others (and they're not 50/50 placed) in most cases won't help us without a careful study of the outcomes.

Actually most part of bac results are randomly placed, we know that 91.4% of the total hands are coin flip situations (besides some card distribution issues).
So there is no point to try to guess an almost full random world for a single player.

In reality, we can assess the "shift" factor either registering it or more simply studying the most likely distributions every one single shoe in the world will take place.

Of course providing to get rid of those shoes not fitting the above situations.

Every winning B bet getting a no asymmetrical hand is a loss. Every P winning bet not getting a symmetrical hand is a loss.

From this we should set up our strategy.

as. 

Quote from: Gizmotron on December 01, 2015, 09:16:49 PM
The trick to taking advantage of these few opportunities is in positioning yourself first by not getting way behind in the session before reaching these opportunities in the first place. I know how to stay at even real easy. That skill must be learned first. 50/50 bets are great for this purpose. Attacking a sleeping dozen that sleeps from 15 to 30 spins in a row is easier still.

I hope you like these simple aspects of the game even more.

Well, I have to admit that another very serious roulette player I've known keep saying the same things you are writing. So I begin to trust you.

Coincidentally, more or less, it's the same way of thought I apply at baccarat with 1 billion accuracy.

The differences with baccarat is that here we get a lower mathematical negative edge, finite card distributions and an asymmetrical factor.

So if you've found some positive expectation hints at roulette I think that at baccarat your edge should be higher.

as.

Quote from: Jimske on November 28, 2015, 03:40:23 PM
Without a defined advantage in any particular situation likely or unlikely has nothing to do with it.

I caution to hold unto your wallet when it comes to asymbac.  Keep in mind he has told people he has deep pockets himself so why would he need to use your money to increase his wealth?

Further, if you are not aware he has posted on different sites the same dialog about an imminent book explaining all.  One that he wishes to sell!

Remember the adage:  If it looks like a duck . . .

I'd never disappoint a player trusting me.

as.




     







 

I'm really sorry for Lung loss. Losing control at this game is very easy, it happened to everyone of us.
 
For everyone thinking that every bet will be 50/50 placed with negative expectation with no points of valid intervention no matter what, I just say "LOL".

as.

Quote from: Gizmotron on December 01, 2015, 07:33:01 PM
I can't play more than 300 spins in a session. There are often three or four magnificent opportunities that occur every 300 spins.

Even though I strongly think that roulette is an unbeatable game, for some reasons I like this statement.


as.   

 

Quote from: Rouletta on November 25, 2015, 01:47:42 AM
@ AsymBacGuy - Thanks for the reply. Is it possible to explain how do u come up with the 1.56% please.

It seems to me that by playing 9 lines, or 27 numbers for 3 spins with a light progression, the probability for
losing is extremely low. Do u agree....?

Cheers

Rouletta

Hi rouletta!

Considering an european wheel and zero excluded, betting 27 numbers out of 36 means to have a 25% probability of losing each time. So 0,25 x 0.25 x 0.25 = 1.5625%.

To get an easier example, let's say you want to hope not to get three red in row.

So 0.50% x 0.50% x 0.50% = 12.5% of losing, that is 1 time every 8.

In fact there are 8 possible dispositions of 3 spins in a row: BBB, BBR, BRB, BRR, RBB, RBR, RRB and RRR. Just one disposition is a losing one.

Since your probability is right the half of the above situation everytime, you'll divide 12.5% 3 times getting 6.25, 3.125 and the final 1.5625 probability.

Unfortunately no matter how many numbers you'll wager, the probability of losing will be proportionally placed.

The highest probability to win when betting roulette numbers on an european wheel is placing 36 numbers out of 37, but it needs 144 units to win just one unit.
The trick to get a profit even betting 36 numbers relies on the fact that some bets are cumulatively placed on 50/50 chances, so getting a 50% return when the zero comes out.

Cheers

as.   
     

Thanks gr8player and I strongly think that if someone wants to consistently try to win at this game it's you one of the person to look for.

During my years of studying this game I collected every kind of average statistical information available.
I know the average probability of almost every possible pattern coming up per every shoe.
Some patterns are almost 50/50 placed, others aren't.   
But as I many times pointed out, the word "average" doesn't fit with a long term winning plan.

The fact that 99,9999% of bac players are losers is due to their ignorance, trying to get the best of it within too short terms.
Almost every player thinks that after 2-3 or more losing shoes the expected more likely favourable outcomes must come out, ignoring that some unexpected losing runs (or worse yet, some simple WL ratio quick assessments) tend to show up in clusters or not coming at all.
In that regard the member sqzbox provided a scientific work about that somewhere.

Long term data show that some more likely outcomes can last per many shoes, obviously.
Therefore we should continue to ride the positive wave, not fearing the possible upcoming RTM effect.
   
But whenever a slight unexpected event comes out, we should put the brakes on.

This is just a statistical effect tested on millions of shoes.

And it's just a variance issue.

Imo, and I'm not alone to state this, to better evaluate what it's happening we should consider a strict betting placement and not trying to guess hand after hand.

as.

Ignoring zero, it should be around 1.56%.
And of course there's no difference to change or not moving bets.   

as.

In a word and if you want to consistently win at baccarat, you must know that the game is asymmetrical by any means.

No one hand will be formed by perfectly symmetrical features for two reasons:

- first, a decent portion of the total hands will be mathematically B shifted;

- secondly, every next hand will be more or less influenced by the cards previously removed.

Just to give a vulgar example, we know that 8s and 9s hugely removed from the deck are going to get more B oriented hands as P chance won't get a fair percentage of natural points not giving the B side an advantage.
Better sayed, any hand not giving the possibility to P chance drawing isn't going to produce an asymmetrical hand giving the B side an advantage.

It's true that shoes' portions rich of 7s and 6s aren't going to form many asymmetrical hands since P side will show more likely 6 or 7 points, but at least we know that B side has the opportunity either to win by drawing or by showing a natural, besides the cut and dried 7-6 scenario.

Anyway, we cannot care a bit about the card counting procedures, as the general dispositions/distributions topic will make the job fo us ITLR.

Therefore the game is asymmetrical for one reason or another.

Statistically the best tool we can take advantage of is studying what happens itlr on each side.

We don't want to guess what happens most in a shoe WHOLLY considered. We want to register each side separately.

Better sayed, we want to know what most likely happens on each side.

Is this a randomly world?

Yes and no.

Most part of it it will.

Nonetheless, itlr some patterns are more likely than others by 100% accuracy.

Back to a perfect strategy plan, meaning the help of a pc software capable to weight the card removal impact, we know that 3/4 of the hands must be B oriented and just nearly more than 1/5 of the total hands (ties included) are P side favored.

Such result come out from a perfect card by card removal effect (with proper burning cards value) dictating that only some hands are BP favored onto a side or another.

Anyway, we don't want to be favorite on every bet we are wagering. We do want to bet some hands where one side is hugely favored over the the counterpart, no matter the cards distribution.

This is a really nonsense.
How could be in the position to be right more often than not if we're not taking account of cards removed from the deck?

For once, the law of averages will help us.

Average card distributions might help one side no matter the third card rule, yet itlr either the asymmetrical factor or the general card distribution must take place at a higher level capable to invert the negative edge values.

Unfortunately or fortunately, it takes some time to this feature to show up but it will.

as.   

 


 






 


 






   

     

Jim, I just wonder if you have ever considered to restrict your bets in order to try to get a minor variance impact and less volatile outcomes.

Of course if both your betting selection and MM are capable to get decently low fluctuations you don't need any "waiting" periods.

In reality I too applied for a long time a high frequency betting plan utilizing a 4-5 step raise of my units when I encountered some expected more profitable outcomes; at the end I've found that only those more selected bets were slightly having the best of it. The rest perfectly fit the old known disadvantage.

Starting from this supposedly slight (and diluted) advantage, I worked trying to spot better edges right on those patterns. And that, imo, means to wait and wait. And to carefully register the outcomes.

Imo and according to gr8player writings, only a strict general betting plan could have the best of it, providing a careful assessment of every step we are going to bet or to register without betting.

Again imo, the more we're going into details, the better will be our results, leaving the least place to the obvious random world even if it will be profitable for us.

I don't want to bet 3 units just because I've lost a given series of previous real bets, hoping to get a RTM effect.
Better sayed, I want to bet my high unit knowing that itlr I'll have the best of it.
And the more I wait (even missing many winning spots) the better should be my outcomes.

I don't want to be in the position to win 20-30 or more units in a very small interval of time. That means to easily and invariably lose 20-30 hands (plus the negative edge and a higher vig impact) into a short amount of time, no matter how sophisticated or good is our bet selection or MM.

Variance should be kept in low terms by not betting at all rather than evaluating small betting amounts, unless you use a huge spread betting plan.

as.     

Quote from: Jimske on November 17, 2015, 05:57:32 PM
When I say every hand I am meaning pretty much every hand until I quit the shoe.  Could be 15 hands could be 75 hands - depends.  Just want to make that clear.

But I need a reason to quit just as I need a reason to bet.  I start every shoe the same way and generally make up my mind what bet placement to use after about 5 hands.  There is no good way to start a shoe.  You either win or lose.  Occasionally I'll lose 5-7 hands or win 5-7 hands out of the gate but not often.  Most of the time I'm either up or down a few units or brake even.

So I was a little bored Sunday and decided to hit the casino.  I generally don't play on weekends and as usual there was no seats but just as I planned to leave a seat opened up and I sat.  The shoe opened up with ppppB and it put me up 1 unit.  I chose my bet placement and the shoe went ppppBBppBBBppBBpp which gave me +11 units.  I am betting every hand and not losing more than 1IAR.  Tell me why I should quit betting every hand and wait for some trigger or variance.  After that the shoe went BBppBBppBBpBBpBBBppBpBB.  At one point I won 10 IAR and am now having a very good shoe and then lost 2 IAR for the first time.  Next the shoe went ppBBBB and here I quit losing 2 IAR again.  I sat and watched pBBBpBBB go by and just left.  I made 46 bets.  W32 for a 69% WR.

Now. . .  obviously if anyone is paying attention that with an overall 52 or 53% WR I get a LOT of shoes that are well below 50%.  In those shoes I am NOT making a whole lot of bets and trying to keep my unit losses low.  Sure, I could get two shoes IAR where I get a 38% WR.  Even though I may only have accumulated 30 bets total in those two shoes that will really knock the hell out of a win %.  I also get a lot of shoes that are 47, 48, 49.  In those shoes I can still come out a head many times - not always.

Why wouldn't I bet every hand in this shoe?

Point is if I wait for some trigger than how many units might I miss in a shoe like this?  Depends on the trigger doesn't it?  That's why I use different "triggers" (bet placements).

This shoe is consistent.  Could be a whole different kind of shoe but still have uniform consistency and be a great winning shoe.

ppppBBppBBBppBBppBBppBBppBBpBBpBBBppBpBBppBBBBpBBBpBBB

This is the shoe you've played/observed.

ppppBBppBBBppBBppBBppBBppBBpBBpBBBppBpBBppBBBBpBBBpBBB

This shoe perfectly fits a general plan I mentioned many times in my posts. Let's say is almost perfect, there's just one losing spot and 24 winnings. You made a lot better than that, congrat!

Let's say is a very deviated situation of what happens most likely by astounding degrees. expecially noticing that:

- There's just one B single and 12 B streaks

- There's just one 3+ P streak and 12 P singles and doubles.

Interesting to notice that such "heavenly" shoe contains a very unlikely sequence of 8 doubles in a row.   

I would have just bet a couple of spots here, so you made a very brilliant play winning 46 units.

as.