Quote from: Jimske on May 21, 2015, 01:02:17 AM
"let give us the time to sign the contract"  huh? I still think that English is your second language.  But go ahead and post the contract so we can see what it is exactly you are proposing.  Perhaps you could start a new thread?

Sigh, I apologize. I'm the worst english writer in the world. [smiley]aes/sad.png[/smiley].

Contract? It's all about a simple book, do you want to know the details about a private agreement? 


About the G.F. method.

Utilizing a total different (and quite rarer) bet selection, it works wonderfully. As any other progression linked to a method capable to bear very low degrees of variance.
Anyway this one has some merits.

as.

Quote from: Big EZ on May 21, 2015, 01:16:12 PM
Do you, or anyone else for that matter, think there is a bet selection where you can get to +1 unit in a shoe without a doubt, by flat betting?

Meaning at some point in a shoe you will be +1 unit guaranteed, you could be negative at the end of the shoe all the time that does not matter.

Im interested to hear responses to this

That's a very interesting question.

After all, the most likely winning possibility to get ahead of the game is just looking for 1 unit profit after having considered a given interval of time that you set up "per every single shoe".

Nope, as it would be a terrific achievement.
And for that matter it would be literally impossible to get such 1 sure unit profit per shoe even at blackjack having a favourable counting as high as +20 or more. 

A quite different story is trying to get 1 unit profit per any played shoe.
This assumption should contain the idea that some initial-intermediate shoe textures are more likely to follow some expected lines than others. Despite this, "more likely" doesn't correspond to the word "undoubtedly".
Unfortunately. 

as.

     







 

Soxfan, who is this garnabby?

as.

Hi roversi.

Actually I'm not a keen fan of the breaking streaks strategy, many people are very competent about this topic as Rolex Watch member for example.

We never know if those two guys were just lucky or whether they had a reliable way to guess what streaks to break.

as. 



 

Quote from: WorldBaccaratKing on May 20, 2015, 03:35:23 AM
You always seem to have all the answers but never post what it is you do to make money?

What triggers do you use?

What bet placements?

You like to talk, that's about all I will give you..............

Semyon Dukach, my hero, talked about the importance to sharing the ideas to beat the casinos.

We'll be glad to put in print our ideas to beat this wonderful game, let give us the time to sign the contract. 

as.







 

Quote from: Big EZ on May 20, 2015, 06:48:41 PM

Does the longer you go without a win make a difference if you know its coming before a certain point?

Imo, yes.

If we have the luck to find a slight edge, I'd prefer to place my higher bets just after a given losing sequence.
Of course because long term evidences have shown me that, for example, the sequence LLLW is greater than the counterpart LLLL after tax.

Clearly, to admit that the sequence LLLW is greater than the LLLL it means the whole method must globally produce more W than L.  That's a sort of incentive to bet every hand but unfortunately many shoes will produce few W and many L and the future recovering after such shoes might be a harsh thing to do.

Moreover, I found that not every sequence is proportionally placed as mathematics will dictate.
I'm talking about W singles vs W streaks; W2 vs W2+, etc.

Hence, imo if a given method produces itlr more W than L, mostly it's because the W long streaks are "longer" than the L streaks, rather than expecting other unbalanced ratios (W singles vs W streaks, for example).

Let's think about those shoes when a single streak of 4+ won't appear at Player chance or those shoes where we cannot find a couple of consecutive singles on B side.

Imo, selecting some rare spots is a sensible way to reduce variance and to get more precision (edge and control) on our bets.
Naturally, we have to be assured that the searched spot is really getting us a long term edge after thousands and thousands of tests.

Just my two 1864 cents 

as. 

     





 


   


   


       

Quote from: Jimske on May 20, 2015, 02:41:57 AM
Actually to cut to the chase super6, his and Gr8's point was, is and always will be that one can predict favorable positions within a shoe to gain an advantage.  Of course that begs the question:  It's a claim that goes nowhere. 

J

LOL.

as.

Quote from: soxfan on May 20, 2015, 02:49:32 AM
That is nonsense, hey hey.

Yep, history taught us that progressions made thousands of millionares, hey hey.

We hope casinos won't read this.  Cross the fingers. 

SSshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh


as. 

Hi super8.

Thanks for your kind response.

What I wanted to say is that baccarat presents many successful situations where you'll have an edge just by flat betting.

And in the worst case you'll reduce the variance to the least.

I don't want to fall into the variance issues, I don't want to bet 25 or 30 or more x standard bet into a mostly coin flip situation, not mentioning that too many times we're getting the wrong side of our bets.

Soon or later any progression will fall into a deep negative period that will destroy every previous winnings (and some more).

I tested several methods having the best of it after 10.000 or 20.000 shoes then invariably crashing.
It's a natural thing: such 10k or 20k shoes had shown a slight propensity to one side or to arrange some events in an unlikely order capable to erase the proportional counterpart parts.

That's why I don't think this system will get the best of it itlr.


as.


 

My point, super6, is to wait some favourable circumstances where any progression could work as it is statistically player's shifted.
Not meaning that such progression can invert the negative edge by itself, instead it will work because we know that certain expected events cannot be delayed for long periods. They are due.
The like the house edge will be due in the long period.

as. 

Hi Jimskie, gr8player perfectly answered for me.
I add some thoughts.

91.4% of the times we are playing pure coin flip successions, the rest is composed by hands where one side has a 15.86% advantage over the other one.

Hence over 9 times over 10 we are tossing a coin and in the history of gambling there aren't reports that a coin flip game could be beaten in the long run (at least practically speaking as, yes, an other than infinite martingale might have the best of it). Let alone continuosly trying to catch that 8.6% where B is hugely favorite without some statistical evidences.

The problem to try to "control" hand by hand a mostly coin flip game is that in the short run we cannot have any hint about the direction one shoe will take. That means we're expecting the most impact of the variance.

To confirm this, we can run thousands and thousands of shoes taking the P singles as our main target.

It's mathematically and statistically certain that itlr P singles will surpass the amount of P streaks, nevertheless an approach based on such sure finding will encounter the heat of the variance. No matter how good and sophisticated will be our progression.
And I'm talking about the most likely simple event any baccarat game in the world will show in the long run. 

Hence, imo, we must restrict our field of operations, let that 8.6% will properly be working.
We must bear the least variance weight even if our method cannot win by flat betting.
And that means to wait favourable opportunities, to let some hands go, many times to let some shoes go.

If the P single occurence is the more likely event to happen, it means that clusters of 2+ P singles are greater than P isolated singles. Sure as hell. Same stuff applies on superior clustered events.

When?

We don't know.

But we do know that the expected ratio will be a given number. And more importantly we do know that differently to "any P single" searched, the clustered P singles searched opposed to isolated P singles will bear a NOT proportionally weight of the variance. Now this has a quite less impact.

Is this sufficient to set up a winning play?
Nope, but it helps.

To reduce variance.

I'm not going to stubbornly looking for P singles when the actual shoe is producing many P streaks.

Nevertheless, the vast majority of shoes will form a lot of P singles and not a lot of P streaks.
In the long run.

Curiously, long run works for casinos and short runs for players. We have to invert this assumption, as they want us to play every f single hand any shoe will produce.


as.



 



 


 

The word "seems" in the thread subject is perfectly appropriate.

Unfortunately any kind of progression, even though this one was acutely thought, soon or later will fail.

Moreover, imo the idea to bet every hand is really debatable because it increases the variance at the maximum value.
Are we really going to "control" the game hand by hand getting the most high variance value?

But the general idea to bet 2 as initial bet then lowering to 1 in case of success isn't insignificant, imho.

as.






 

I made some more tests about this topic and I found something interesting.

Imo, approaching a given new strategy we better study many angles of it, even though seemingly to be apparently worthless.

We have chosen to consider P streaks of 3s, 4s and 5+s.

Probability to get a given number of 3s, 4s, and 5+s P streaks per shoe

In about 80% of the total shoes, we'll get three, four, five or six streaks belonging to this category. 
The most likely occurence is to get four streaks at a rate of about 25.3%. Three and five streaks show an almost same probability being about 21.2%.
Six streaks will come out nearly 12.5% of the times.

The remaining 20% is composed by:
- 11.6% of one and two streaks
- 7% of seven and eight streaks.
- 1.4% of zero or nine or more streaks and some "unregistered streaks" .

The unregistered streaks are those streaks that cannot be enlisted in any category because they happen at the end of the shoe, so they are not defined in their quality.

So we know that itlr four times over five, per any shoe we'll expect to get from three to six 3+ streaks.


Strategy plan

If we want to bet B two times (with any light mini-progression) after any three consecutive P in order to hopefully get 3s and 4s and stopping whether a 5s streak is produced, in the long run we'll have the certainty to have more winning bets than losing bets. 100% guaranteed.
Alas, we'll have to endure the heat of the variance. Moreover, more numerous our actual bets will be, the higher will be the tax rate we'll have to pay (always betting B means we are 100% sure to pay a 5% tax on our winning bets).

Since we are here to be long term winners and not to get some fun from playing, in some way we must select a valid way to catch the best spots to bet into.
So we want to study the impact of our chosen "enemy": the 5+s.

Probability to get 5+s P streaks per any shoe

About 44.4% of the total shoes will show just one P 5+ streak.
And at nearly 33.5% rate, we'll get zero P 5+ streaks.
Thus about 78% of the cases we know that a 5+ P streak will come out zero or one time.

Only 22% of the times we'll expect to get two and three or more 5+s streaks.
More precisely, we'll have three or more 5+s streaks just 5% of the times.

So we can safely assume that about 95% of the times any single f shoe will show zero, one or two 5+s P streaks.

Are those statistical assumptions of any help?

Let's go on.

Statistical features

In my opinion and in the opinion of my data, there's no way to control short term outcomes.
Even if a target point of 3 consecutive P might be a decent spot to start our betting, we all know that variance will tend to destroy everything. We don't want to bet such any single spot, because some shoes will produce many 5+s P streaks. Imo, no any very sophisticated MM would have the best of it.
Interestingly and not surprisingly (at least talking about 5s P streaks), less likely events have to come out isolated and not clustered. And considering an asymmetrical whimsical game like baccarat, some selected events don't want to be proportionally due as the mathematics will dictate.

as     



 





     




































   

Quote from: mahatma on May 09, 2015, 10:14:57 PM
Ok got it, another question.

Your trigger has appeared, you lose the first bet, I guess you take a 2nd bet?  Would this be at the same amount or slight increase, if you lose twice, you wait for another trigger???

Yes.

as.

Yes mahatma, more or less the concept is that.

We are 100% sure that itlr P3-P4 will proportionally surpass the P5+ streaks.
Nevertheless, if we transform ourselves into a betting mechanical machine everytime wagering to get 3s and/or 4s after three Player hands, we'll be caught by the variance.
So we must make some adjustments along the way.
Imo, 

- The rarer is a given event, the more variance will be restrained adopting a proper method. Meaning that we can confide to get a winning hand very shortly.

- Rarer events tend to either come out zero or few times or by clusters; in the latter case more often than not their probability is greatly reduced.
Meaning that when a series of slight unlikely events will appear, the risk to get the expected right after such distribution might be diminished.   

Imo, both will help us to find a reliable way (according to my data) to "control" the game.

as.