Thx AsymBacGuy

I appreciate the explanations/example.

I like your #two sentence:

"...#2: math values work only at real random propositions, yet we can assume that such randomness doesn't affect most part of live shoes dealt. ..."


Continued Success,

Hi AsymBacGuy

Thx for replies/comments.

"...
the fact that B>P should be considered as an irrelevant factor as AB streaks are way more detectable than BP streaks.

- the probability to get a given AB pattern is at least 1.5 times higher than the BP probability to get the same pattern, .."


Can u give an example as I am not following your logic in the statement above. Is there an example for how this could actually be applied in real time within a shoe. Thx in advance for clarification,kfb

Thx for replies AsymBacGuy and Alrelax.




continued success,

Hi Alb

"...I have started my initial tests and it looks promising but whether it would end the uncertainty is a matter yet to be evaluated. I m pretty excited with my preliminary tests. Wish me luck.   ... "

Are you looking at doing this in Roulette or any EC game/wager? Any additional updates on your progress?
Best of luck to u. kfb

Hi PatternAnalys

re: Your post above.

"...IMAGINE this,

Tom and Harry,
play as a TEAM,
(and using Albalaha's hg mm method).

Tom will bet
"Player",
and Harry will bet "Banker"...

both bet with same X units capital.

When
"within expectation hit ", as always,
both will win around some % of X " ,
and when
the EXPECTED unexpected
"harsh extreme ",
hit...

say BANKER,
hit only 30/100,

then Harry will lose all the X,
but Tom,
will hit jackpot,
but when "factoring in",
Harry's HUGE losses, resulting in minimal losses,
that will easily, neutralised,
with next one or two round of bet...

What you think?
   ..."


My earlier comment:  "...Alot of creative ideas in  your post above.

Ill have to think on it as i may have a couple Q   ..."



     If Im understanding your idea my thinking is that (although it would indeed restrict the -effects of Variance on our buyin ), it would also restrict our potential to win (when we are in sync with the results). All the while exposing double(both players' wagers), to the H.E., with only 50% of the possible potential.

     *I play almost daily with a couple older gentleman that play something similar to what you mention. One day per week(typically Fri), they will spend the whole day going to several dif casinos to play their free play, food vouchers, match play,submit entries for weekend drawings, ....etc as they don't play weekends/ so they either use them or lose them. So their main objective is to get rated higher for comps with less $ at risk, while accomplishing the above.

Somewhat similar to what u mention above (at a $50min cas), they each start out with $50 each as opposing sides' wagers(p/b). Depending on which wins, one then wagers $55/the other player always stays at $50. They do a very diluted /slow neg pro in $5 increments.
Their main objective is to get higher comps at the $50+ level while only risking approx $5(2.50 each) or slightly more if they have to extend the negpro, and they attempt to make a few +dollars Net between them.
Though it wouldn't be my "cup-o-tea"  as it would be like watching paint dry. However, it does indeed appear to satisfy their objective.

Maybe there are other ways of viewing it that I haven't considered.


Thx again for posting/continued success,

Thx Alrelax--good points.






Continued Success,

Thx AsymBacGuy--good thread/ post.

Your sentence:
"... An average card distribution will more likely produce clustering win situations. The more we are considering winning clusters by strict parameters, higher will be the probability to win.  ..."

Can you clarify the phrase in bold? or give an example. thx



Continued Success,

Hi XXVV
Hope you are doing well. Any thing eventful for you lately?

As an addendum to albalahas post/inquiry above. 

After reading alot of your post a few months back I then went to many of the utube links you provided. I found both informative/THX.

I recall you mentioned in Fall 20' you were optimistic on an upcoming IPO but couldnt give us the ticker until it went public. Has that public offering indeed happened?

After reading your articles on crypto I started a daily monitoring on the following:

RIOT
LTC
DGB
BTC
ETH

I am still monitoring/have not purchased any of the above.


Q1

Re: Crypto markets. Do you have an opinion on what effect (if any) the money put into this asset class will affect the precious metals markets??? The physical as well as paper investments?

Q2
In recent months I seem to all of sudden be bombarded with emails from Paypal pushing PP account holders to purchase crypto via their PP account and hold in their accounts(with many restrictions).
     Any knowledge on this /personal opinions or thoughts??


Thx in advance.



Continued Success,

Thank you sir.

A Happy Fathers Day to u too.

Hi PatternAnalys

Thx for post.

Alot of creative ideas in  your post above.

Ill have to think on it as i may have a couple Q.



Continued Success,

Hi alb
Thx for responses

I agree it(pospro) may not win to infinity trials.

"...It doesn't win average shoes as well. It needs better than average times to win..."

     It depends. If one only wagers on part of the shoe then an average shoe may (or may not) be reflective of the part that received wagers.


I also like that no casino rules that require us to play 100% of our wins back through the casino.

They do not ask us to gamble at all. We do that and lose our money too apart from any coincidental win that we got from casino. This is true for 99% gamblers. We lose money in the endeavour of winning more and not for any guilt of winning money from casino.
[/i]

     I don't know what you mean.



negative progressions if used cautiously could surpass over 10 millions spins test on roulette while I did it with Ophis.   

     that's impressive--Im guessing it was a same-side wager(e.g., black or red?)

         I did this 8 years back with one of the finest programmers on any forum, Ophis. We surpassed all data that we could put our hands over. Over 10 millions spins of roulette were beaten, mercilessly. We bet all sorts of bets from EC to single number. It was a controlled negative progressions, kind of brute force attack on all bets possible in roulette. You can feel it here:
https://betselection.cc/index.php?topic=808.0


      Thx for link as I read the first page or so today. Interesting sim. Good study by u/ophis. However, Im not sure how much is applicable to a real cas live table. It seems if it performed that well with roulette there are several other games I would hypothesize we would see superior results.  Just my quick thoughts as I have very minimal experience  w roulette so maybe it(roult) has some underlying traits within its overall  profile that lend itself to this type of wagering. Even with my lack of roulette gaming experience I would still hypothesize Bac p/b as well as Craps line wagers(e.g., Pl / dp), would perform better, all other variables being the same(due to a variety of reasons).
Good info and kudos to u/ ophis.


*Side Note: I have only played one shoe in my lifetime across thousands of shoes that neither P or B showed 3 in a row same-side wins(ppp or bbb). That particular shoe only had one 3-consec chop(near the end).


Well, probability to get a ppp or bbb is 1/8 roughly so in 72 hands of a shoe, one should get it 9 times averagely. You said you saw only one shoe of such kind where no PPP or BBB occurred, well it is actually rare and remote to happen frequently but if you get one or two such wins in a shoe, it should not be enough to get you a net profit.[/size]
[/i]

       Exactly



Continued Success,

Hi Alb
Thx for reply to my Q

What was the MOST hit in any 1000 consec trials  for each side (B and P) ? Thx in advance.

    "...558 and 548. You should get the MAX seeing the Least of its counterpart when Ties are already removed from counting...."

I concur


Continued Success,

Hi AsymBacGuy
Good post. Thx for answering my question and the additional intel is thought provoking.


"...We'll see more deeply this issue in a couple of days. ..."

We look forward to the next edition.



kfb

Good post and comments PatternAnalys and Albalaha

PatternAnalys
"...I think, betting a fixed, "player only", or bet "banker only", will inevitably meet harsh negative extreme..."

IMO it is the "fixed" or what I call predetermined bet selection that contributes to our expected harsh negative extreme.  Variance will always be our number one nemesis. 

Albalaha

re: "...I recently checked Zumma 1600, 117k+ hands of baccarat without Ties. In Player, 442 was the least hit in 1000 consecutive trials and 452 for Banker. I believe it could be 400/100 as the worst being 5SD. As I said repeatedly, it could be even 300/1000 at a point of time and we need not win that span but stay least harmed. Winning in the long run can not include winning 5SD variance. .."

Q: What the MOST hit in any 1000 consec trials  for each side (B and P) ? Thx in advance.



Continued Success,

Hi Albalaha. Thx for your thoughts/comments.

"...while positive progression either presupposes more wins than losses or looks for clumping wins. If you simulate any so called positive progression in the long run, it can't win there while negative progressions if used cautiously could surpass over 10 millions spins test on roulette while I did it with Ophis.   ..."

     I agree it(pospro) may not win to infinity trials. However, I like to also view as it can win First (meaning prior to losing buyin), and can win several x buyin, BEFORE, its ultimate demise. I also like that no casino rules that require us to play 100% of our wins back through the casino. 

     *When I run sims or see a completed study or sims on a pospro I also find it helpful to look at not only the number of trials, but also things like : Did the sims only include same-side streaks(i.e., vertical presentation on a tote board) or other streaks, % of press, how many presses, was the bet required to be active on all wins for that streak (from first through last), did the pressed wager continue to the end, did the wager birth/die in only one streak,....etc, was the press regime linear or exponential, where did the average basal and ceiling occur, how far apart were said basal/ceiling, where did the first basal show(# of trials on avg),  just to  name a few.


negative progressions if used cautiously could surpass over 10 millions spins test on roulette while I did it with Ophis.   ..."[/i][/color]

     that's impressive--Im guessing it was a same-side wager(e.g., black or red?)?


"... Rather, negative progressions are based on more realistic premise, i.e. expecting lesser wins than losses while positive progression either presupposes more wins than losses or looks for clumping wins.  ..."

IMO one of the main attributes of Pospro is the addendum earnings and future potential anytime we can get "clumped wins"(clumping meaning we are winning consecutive wagers and not necessarily consecutive same-side or same pattern or same shoe), simply meaning we won consecutive bets(maybe by luck, probability, trigger, verified advantage, variance, proven theory, hunch,...etc,, it doesn't matter why they occurred consecutively ).
Secondly, a pospro allows one to win even if guessing <50% correct---though they will need to be consec winners.
     
     The downside of a pos pro is obviously that our consecutive(or clump of wins) will generally need to be at least 3-consec and optimally four or five to start seeing an exponential compounding effect, AND said consec bets need to show above expectation more shoes than not.
This is where other ratios are important: Bet size-to-Buyin-to-Bankroll. Too small of wager size and we are required to achieve more winning wagers. Too Big /we may be limited in attempts and then bet too few attempts and thus our hit rate will need to be signif higher than average,,.....etc.

I don't view three consec wins on either side , pattern, inter-shoe, ..etc as being difficult at all in a random even-chance game of 84 decisions.  Once we start seeking the >=four/five consec is where we must start considering the average distance(or wait time) we can expect to endure if one is wagering randomly in an even-chance game.
All patterns do not have the same wait time or distance between presentation.

*Side Note: I have only played one shoe in my lifetime across thousands of shoes that neither P or B showed 3 in a row same-side wins(ppp or bbb). That particular shoe only had one 3-consec chop(near the end).

Im  in favor of pospro with maybe a little negpro blended in to help nick away at the house edge with little risk of ruining my buyin.
Im not against negpro if that is ones chosen M.O.    I do like albalahas' term above: Hybrid --as long as we don't try to contain or restrict too much of the variance. 







Continued Success To All,