To get a vulgar example of how variance works at baccarat when a player has a sure undeniable and mathematical edge, pretend to have a fantastic no-vig game on B bets.
So itlr we'll strike rich only betting the Banker, the casinos we'll finally go broke and Semyon Dukack will be the most happy person in the world.

Test thousands and thousands and thousand of shoes and you'll look at some long consecutive and tedious shoes where the B will come out very rarely, principally by singles form.
Some "unfortunate" players will get such long sequences lasting several shoes just at the start of their playing sessions.
Worse yet, some people who benefitted of many very rich B shoes at the start begin to fall into the sure "poor" or "very poor" future B hands shoes where they don't know what to do to stop this bleeding.

Do we really think that 100% of the persons playing in such heavenly game will be eventually winners?

Are there some ploys to reduce the negative variance that invariably will come out soon or later?

Now let's think about our actual real play not benefitting from any mathematical edge by any means.
Are we really able to control the variance in a short-intermediate amount of shoes?

as. 
 





   

 







 

Quote from: Mike on May 22, 2015, 11:18:07 AM
Variance is not the enemy, the house edge is. Beat the house edge and the variance is irrelevant.

Theorically that's true, in the practice it's not so easy to handle this.


as. 

 

 


   



 
   





 












   

Van Keelen test

A system indicates a genuine superiority (even money bets by flat betting):

-   if after 1000 placed bets a gain of more than 100 units was obtained
-   if after 8000 placed bets a gain of more than 60 units was obtained
-   if after 100000 place bets a result better than 1000 was obtained

Is this the test you were talking about?

as.

Quote from: Big EZ on May 22, 2015, 02:07:43 PM
Would you consider  being able to pass The Van Keelen Test to be a definitive example of having an edge ?

What if you can't reach 550/1000 each time but you are above 500 each time? Would you consider that an example of having an edge ?

That's interesting. If you are so kind to elaborate...

as.

Quote from: Mike on May 22, 2015, 08:20:41 AM
So how does that make  her a hero? it was pure luck.

Hi.
Hero as she didn't tip a dime. Of course ties are the worst bets in the baccarat empire.

as. 

Thanks for your attention, soxfan.

If you'll have the kindness to purchase it, you won't read some spectacular assumptions.

But if you keep losing after having read my ideas, well call the police. 

as. 

Yes soxfan.

But at the end they were huge winners.

About casinos, I agree: they hugely comp us, they kindly greet us, they entice our play as they know that soon or later we'll go broke.
And whenever they suffer a transitory loss they are whining and whining and hoping the fortunate(s) will be back right on their premise.

At a high limit room, I recently witnessed an asian girl betting the maximum on tie bet, winning some consecutive bets in a very short period.
Casino personnel went wild, just as such circumstances weren't allowed by mathematics.
I'm talking about a more than 600k winning on just 6-7 hands.

What?

Are you complaining such a loss knowing you get an over 14% advantage on those bets?

Well, you (casinos) deserved to be punished.

Spectacular thing to notice is the girl didn't tip the dealers a f cent.

One more hero adding to my list.

@Jimskie: look on the blogosphere section of this site.

as. 





 

That's my book I'm glad to introduce here.  It will be printed in october.

Contents (so far no editing was made, so i'm sorry about my bad english):

- General concepts

- Differences between a perfect 50/50 game and baccarat

- The role and the weight of asymmetricity

- Dispositions and distributions

- Baccarat variance and the "decline in probability" concept applied to baccarat

- Banker side events vs Player side events. The "enemy concept"

- Approaches based on the most likely events apparition

- Getting an edge by flat betting on some selected spots, part one

- Online vs live casinos

- The long term winning baccarat player attitude



as.

Quote from: soxfan on May 22, 2015, 12:16:29 AM
The garnabby is a wild and strange cat that also like to talk in riddle, hey hey.

Ok I got it, but Semyon doesn't belong to such category.

Semyon Dukach was one of the two most successful MIT members who punished many casinos around the world. The very best gambling effort in the hystory of gambling to fk the casinos.

I like to quote his words:

If someone had told me that a few years ago that one day I would be revealing the techinques we used against the casinos to the public, I would have beeen taken it as a serious insult. For me and my teammates, beating the casinos has never been entirely about the money. Of course the money was important, and on the surface, the whole enterprise may have been resembled a kind of crazy financial start-up on steroids, but anyone looking deeper would have seen that for us, the blackjack team was not a business, but a passionate, desperate struggle against the mighty evil empire that was and continues to be the casino industry.

And:

Share them (your techniques) with others, post them on a blog, or write your own book. Because it's not just about how much you win, it's also about how much they lose!



as.







   






   

Quote from: Big EZ on May 21, 2015, 08:42:46 PM
Not one method/system has a better chance of getting to +1 from start then any other? That really is interesting

Wait.
In the long run, this is a sure yes.
But not per every single shoe.

Remember that baccarat hands are produced by some given card distributions (CD). Some CD won't get expected more likely results as they won't provide a decent amount of as hands and/or they will contain unlikely sequences of not asymm hands going to the same side.

Let's think about poker and about the likelihood to get any player a pair, a suited connector hand or whatever. All this is mathematically placed.
But at baccarat there's a subtle force working and shifting the outcomes toward one side.

To get a better idea about this we should run millions of shoes where the third card rule is not working and where it does work. Of course after having properly assessed the vig's weight.

That's the key to understand why some events are more likely than others. Not everytime. Not per every single shoe. After all the force is working less than one time per every ten hands.

as. 

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.