Quote from: Lung Yeh on December 18, 2015, 10:43:04 AM
Negative progression bets on this changeover of trends is what decimates our bankroll and leave us desperate to chase losses.

Correct.  Much better to accept the quick profit whenever you've read the current trend correctly rather than continue to bet into the impending "changeover" and thereby risk losing all profit or, even worse, falling into the red.

Quote from: Lung Yeh on December 18, 2015, 10:43:04 AM
I have made 3 winning runs to Marina Bay which has let me recover from my Genting debacle. Self control, money management, discipline and a whole host of other attributes have helped me. I hope I can continue on this run from now and not divert from my game plan for each and every trip.

I could not be happier for you, Lung Yeh.  Yes, self control and discipline combined with conservative money management; now you are controlling that which you can control.  Do not "divert" from your winning game plan.  It may not succeed every time (what does?), but it'll provide your game the consistency it might've lacked before.

Again, great job, and I wish you only continued successes.  Stay well.

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on December 18, 2015, 06:43:31 PM
I think that basically we're playing the same strategy, maybe I'm more selective.

You may be right, my friend, but I'm not so sure.  If I'm not mistaken, I believe that your selective play revolves around certain card distribution; mine, on the other hand, does not.

That said, however, there's no doubt that we both are rather selective in our plays, and that's a certain commonality between us.

Stay well.

Quote from: sqzbox on December 17, 2015, 10:18:34 PM
... I am not sure that selectively betting in this manner is going to achieve an edge because you are actually still betting into the random series - just selectively. Is this just pattern betting? Because a pattern can be found in anything - if you look hard enough and are creative enough about it.

No.  And yes.

No, I do not bet into any "random series"; or, might I say, I don't bet into any series that I deem as a random one.  I am a selective trender/bettor, but my bet selections are limited strictly to those events in the shoe that I deem as non-random.

And yes, "a pattern can be found in anything".  This is true.  While I am not a pattern bettor, as a trender I am very well aware that the same thing can be said of most trending...."I can find a trending reason to bet every hand"...so that, in effect, a trend can be found in anything, as well.  The serious trender is the one that realizes this phenomena and, thusly, does not allow themselves to get caught up in that "trender's trap".  How?  By specializing and mastering just a couple of statistically-sound trends, rather than attempting to play them all.  (Sidenote:  Playing this selective style will also produce the tight variance statistics that the serious player utilizes when molding their money management strategy.)

Stay well.

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.

Interesting question you ask, sqzbox.  Interesting, but, alas, moot.

The "random v non-random" question is rendered moot by the astute player that both ACKNOWLEDGES and RECOGNIZES the differences between the two.

Their job then becomes to "sit out" the random and take profit (read: bet into) the non-random.  Sidenote:  When I say "bet into", I mean to say to accept the quick profit (or short loss, if wrong), lest we give back our profit by betting back into the inevitable return of randomness.

Now, before I am asked for an example of such play, let me state here and now that it can be accomplished only by the experienced, patient, and disciplined player that realizes the true limitations of any non-randomness that is associated with this game.

This means limiting one's bets.  This means limiting one's betting-progression use.  This means strict win goals/loss limits.

Why?  Because, unfortunately, sqzbox, this is not an exact science.  You see, random can be a rather fickle witch to contend with.  Random results are the bane of any good trender.  And so the astute player comes to terms with that rather swiftly, and works only on seeking out the non-randomness sections of the game (read: shoe).

That's why I can never fathom nor understand the player that bets every hand, or even most hands, of the shoe.  Are they doing so in the name of hoping to catch their "sweet spot" at some point or another?  I suppose so.  But I will tell you this:  That style of play, that approach, served as the absolute birthplace of long and extended negative progressions.  Need I state why?  Of course not, for it's rather obvious.  And the casinos absolutely LOVE these players.  Again, need I state why?

Lastly, sqzbox, you ask in your opening post "if non-randomness is able to measured"?  My friend, yes, it can.  A simple study of the "Laws of Series" is but one example of non-randomness measured.  But let us not confuse "measurement" with any sort of "exactness", which might have been more to the point of your inquiry.  In that case, no, non-randomness (and, for that matter, even randomness) is rendered as inexact.  So, again, the astute player can only subjectively seek to profit from the non-randomness as they deem it so, for it is not an exact science.  That is the reason I stated earlier the importance of accepting the quick profit as each non-randomness becomes evident, and then await the next opportunity.

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....

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on November 25, 2015, 03:52:49 AM
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.

Correct, AsymBacGuy.

"Guessing after every hand" will negate any edge that the astute and calculating variance player is seeking.  Only with a consistent and "strict betting placement" can that same player effectively utilize variance statistics to their advantage.  Then the game comes down to, for the most part, calculated bet sizing.  Done and done.  Stay well.

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on November 22, 2015, 10:14:47 PM
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.

You are a wise man, AsymBacGuy; a man who understands variance and its impact upon one's game and, most importantly, their results.

Variance is a "ying vs yang" proposition, especially so within our "short term" sessions.  So, as you stated above, winning 20 to 30 units in the short term will translate itself, eventually if not immediately, into a similar loss.

So the wise variance player learns to keep his bet selection process as limited as possible, and learns to keep his win goals and, yes, loss limits as limited as possible, and learns to keep his sessions as limited as possible....all done for the sake of the viable bet-adjusting that accompanies variance play.  (Sidenote:  Most everybody adjusts their bets, you see it all the time.  But the true variance player does it so that it produces, over the long term, a viable advantage over the house's edge.)

Stay well.

And again, for some reason, this thread was "locked".  Sorry 'bout that....if it's something that I'm doing to cause it to be locked, I can assure you that I am not aware of it.  Anyhow, it is now unlocked, as, IMHO, all threads should be, so that we can freely share our opinions.

I posted a rare Trip Report last week, explaining some difficulties regarding profit acquisition, as I pocketed but 4 units for the entire trip.  I further stated that I would, as per my variance play/strategy, be raising my base unit size at next trip, all in anticipation of an "upward correction" in my variance and profit maximization of same.  I also said that you'd be able to read about next trip's results right here in this forum....well, as promised:

Wednesday afternoon session:

Yes, I raised my unit sizes by 50%, not a large raise, but just enough to capitalize on an expected good session with a corresponding expected better-than-average strike rate.  OK.  Bottom line:  33 bets placed, 19 bets won and 14 bets lost, 57.5% strike rate, and hit my session win goal of 5 units, all @50% higher denomination.  Bottom line #2:  In my trip report last week, I reported my difficulties (even though I still won 4 units for the trip) with my strike rates, and said that I expect an upward correction and that I would raise my bet size in anticipation....well, I was right.  My 57.5% made up for my just-below-50% of last week, and my larger-than-normal unit size increased my profit from it.  All expected, all, business-as-usual as it pertains to variance play.  So let's go a bit further about that, as I continue with this TR:

Wednesday night session:

Wow.  Back to regular sized units, here's how easy this one was:   I won my first bet, lost my second bet, and then proceeded to win the next 7 bets in-a-row.  I cashed out at +7.  Easy-peasy.  BUUUTTT, you guys that know me know that I'm a variance player, and I don't hit at 90% too often, and so while I certainly enjoyed the win, you know another adjustment is coming:

Thursday afternoon session:

After last night's breeze, I decided to cut back my unit size by 25%, in anticipation of a downward correction in my strike rate.  Well, I played a shoe-and-a-half (a very slow game, with no one betting....very frustrating) and won exactly nothing, breaking out dead-even with a 50% strike rate.

Thursday night session:

Still playing a lower unit size, as I still expect, maybe, a downward correction:  Nope.  Wrong.  I placed 38 bets, winning 21 while losing only 17, and so now I picked up 4 units, again at lesser-sized.

OK.  Last session of trip:  Friday afternoon session:

Again, lower-sized units (25% off).  And yet, again, I won 3 units in a relatively-quick "getaway-day" session, where if I'm either not doing as well as I'd like OR the game is a lousy one with slow players...in this case it was the latter...I look to pick up a quick profit (any profit) and go.  You never want to fall behind and having to play "catch up" in the middle of a lousy, slow game, especially on "get-away" day.  OK.  So another 3 units, again reduced.

So, stuff happens.  I play a variance game, and now I left some money on the table because of it.  Next week, I'm going back to original unit sizes.  I can't reduce off of 4- and 3-unit wins, and, remember, I didn't....I only reduced after winning 8 out-of-9 bets at session #2.  Then I simply kept the reduction throughout the remainder of the trip, just in case I happened to hit some difficulty with a downward correction.  Well, there was nothing "downward" about this trip.  I never raised my bet for the entire trip, as I was in "1-ville" in my Gr8Player's Progression the entire time, which relates to simple flat-betting.

So, yeah, wow.  One word: wow.  My bet selection process is as good as it gets, mostly because of:

1.)  Consistency.  I never change, I never falter.  I am very well aware that I am but one bad bet away from blowing it all, and so I never waver, I never change, and I never falter.  Consistency.

2.)  Strike rate.  Over 50%.  Impossible, you say?  Think again.  I pick only my selected spots, and they don't let me down, at least not for too long, which brings me to the last but not least:

3.)  Variance.  A measurable (read: tight) variance, both upwards and downwards, which allows me to adjust my bet sizes accordingly.  I know my statistics, and I bet accordingly.  Either in the name of recoup or in the name of profit maximization, I am of the opinion that I am virtually unbeatable over the long term.  All because I play statistics that always seem to stay within their lines.  And as long as they do so, I will prevail over the house's edge.

Heck, I even had a session "bust-out" a few weeks ago (I reported of that as well, right here in this forum.), but by way of adjusting my unit sizes after that much-larger-than-normal downward variance, I recouped virtually all of that loss in my next session, easily.  And, as I've always told you guys:  if you have an effective means of recouping your tougher-than-usual sessions, what remains of your easier much-more-usual winning ones:  They're All Profit!

Lastly, fellas, I've just got to say it:  How is it that more players don't play a "variance" game?  I mean, I'm there every week, and all I ever see are the same faces that all look alike, making the same bets over and over again, with no regard to any stats or any meaning at all, just hoping that the shoe will comply with their bets.  Now, don't get me wrong:  I, too, hope the shoe will comply with my bets.  But, the difference is:

1.)  I make the same bet all the time.  I don't look at the past results to figure out my next bet; I look only for my "trigger", and then I'll bet.

2.)  I have an answer, the correct answer, when my bets lose.  Knowing what to do when you're losing is the answer to any or all of your difficulties at this game, because, frankly, if you have the correct answer (yes, the answer IS variance play) then those problems are both short-lived and easily eradicated.

So why doesn't everybody play a variance game?  I just don't get it...is it because they would all simply rather GAMBLE with their money?  Witness the fella to my right on Thursday night's session:  He buys in for about a thousand dollars (I wasn't watching that closely to be sure...but a nice-enough fella, we were talking for a bit), and he couldn't lose a hand.  He must've won a thousand bucks in a quarter of a shoe.  So he says goodbye and leaves, smart move, nothing wrong with that.  But, now about 15 minutes later, back he comes, chips in hand, but now, he couldn't win a hand.  He lost back at least $1500 bucks...also in but a quarter-shoe.  Wham bam...he went from a nice winner to a garbage loser, in one fell swoop.  Now, what was he thinking?  Did he think he'd never lose a hand, because after he won and left, and when he came back, he was betting as big or even bigger than he was before.  Did he think he'd never lose a hand?  If he were playing a variance game, and given that he won almost every bet he'd made earlier, when he played again he would have adjusted his bets after such a positive variance, and he'd have lost at his minimum bet rather than his highest, or, heaven forbid, he might have even "no-betted" (read: sat out some hands) for a spell.

I just don't understand why more players do nothing and, worse, know nothing about variance.  Me?  I could not nor would not put a dollar onto the table without my variance stats at hand.  How the heck else am I supposed to know how much to bet?

Quote from: Jimske on November 10, 2015, 02:47:11 AM
The problem I have with the term edge and "personal variance and statistics" is that it portrays to the uninitiated that there is a true mathematical edge.  If only they could have the "right" bet placement.  Nonsense!

Hmmm....strange, a player such as yourself who's hitting at a 52% strike rate calling the "right" bet placement "nonsense".

It's not "nonsense" to know which circle to put your money into, Jimske; rather, it takes a keen sense of the game to do so, especially if one's goal (and it sure should be) is to keep those strike rates as high as possible.

And the kicker is:  A bet selection process that will carry a better than 50% strike rate over the long term will, inherently, maintain rather tight variance statistics; so much so that the serious player just might be able to profit from the "movements" and their corresponding "corrections".

The funny thing is, Jimske, you probably play virtually the same way I do, at least, in many ways....it's just that you do it without labeling it or even realizing it.  But, trust me, Jimske, you're hitting at over 50% for a reason and you're adjusting your bet sizes for a reason....you don't want to call it variance play, fine....but you're doing something right, and that's no "nonsense", my friend.

Stay well.

Well said, Giz, and, even more importantly, well played.

The savvy player learns exactly how to play those "swings", as you call them, or "variances", as I refer to them.

Lastly, as to the term "guessing", that's a rather nebulous term that can mean vastly different things to different players.  I, myself, inherently hold a rather negative view as it refers to that term.  I suppose that is due to the fact that I do not, ever, never, "guess".  IMHO, there simply exists no room in this game for any guesswork, either at the tables directly or even as it relates to one's general, overall thinking regarding same.

To my way of thinking regarding this game, there exists only statistics.  Proven statistics, based strictly upon my (and only mine) method of play, both bet selection- and money management-wise.  I make adjustments to my play based ONLY upon those proven statistics, both inter- and intra-session(s).

(Sidenote:  As I close this post, I wish to make it very clear that while there are players....Jimske, yourself, and various others....that do prefer to use the term "guess" and/or "guessing", and I do not; that does not make me right or them wrong.  More than likely, it probably could all come down to semantics, different terms for virtually the same thing.  So I am by no means knocking anyone's usages of any terms; this forum, nor any forum, can never prosper in that scenario, for only the unrestricted use and application of anyone's verbiage....assuming that it is kept civil....can and will serve as the vehicle that keeps us all moving forward within this forum.)

Take care, and stay well.

Quote from: Jimske on November 09, 2015, 01:59:08 AM
Gr8 variance no different than mine or yours.

That may very well be true.  The differences are apparent, however, by the tracking and subsequent utilization of our variance(s).

Take this week's trip, for instance:

I struggled last week, as I expanded upon in my trip report, and picked up only a total of 4 units for the entirety.  And so, this week's trip, I will be upping my basic unit size (just slightly, but noticeably), all in anticipation of a "strike-rate correction" in the upward direction.  If I am correct (and you'll be able to read of it right here in this forum at trip's conclusion), I will maximize my profits just following an "off" week; again, all variance-based play, all the time.

Stay well.