[smiley]giga/lotf.gif[/smiley]

WHAT you had to leave the WoV before Shackford was about to instigate a rule change to get rid of you, as you were a laughing stock.  Who cleaned up the GG site from the scammers, not you.  Esteemed?  Oh yeah on Bac-Labs, who accumulated me, likes, kudos etc on that stupid point system that was used? 

You are now more irrational than ever, my guess due to the stress of being unemployed.   While I may use multiple ID's as does most, at least I don't hide in real life, avoiding anybody who offers to meet up, what have you got to hide Roberta?  Somebody even offered you a quick 10K on the Wiz site, you acted like a rabbit caught in the headlights, fancy that GR8 turning down the offer to make a quick 10k in 3 shoes?   Yeah we all know why you ran scared, because when the push came to the shove, you would never be able to produce and the fantasy would have been exposed, the internet party well and truly over.

Jealous of your status?  Jesus, you're a half baked fruit cake, being polite and calling everybody "my friend" doesn't bring home he bacon, won't make people slicker players.  You have no "real world friends" Walter, which is why you post so much dribble over the years, your crave the recognition, need the attention because in the real world, you simply don't get any and still feel guilty about ruining your life by giving the casino's a quarter of a million dollars.  Just think how your life coulda/woulda/shoulda turned out had you never gambled!!!

Yeah Robert I'm seriously so jealous of somebody who perhaps has more cyber-friends, not that he'll ever offer to meet any of them at the tables.  There's a few Foxwood players on this forum, just like there were many AC players on the Wiz site, I recall they offered to meet you'.  moral support don't pay the bills as you will find out soon enough

The weasel excuses you invented was laughable as always, what are you scared of Walter, your plays, your bet amount??  One time it was $400 per hand, then that got downgraded to $100 (I have the posts), damn shame I don't have that email were you confessed you bet $10 per hand, you're turning into another spike.

You're too far gone, been regurgitating the same old basically nothing for the last 10 years, go do your thing, your yesterday's stale news.  Kinda obvious now you don't have a regular income, things are really eating away at you, that there exists a forum related to Baccarat and you can't even see it.  No amount of begging, badgering, silly offers of help (you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours) is ever going to gain you access, capish.  Now ain't that just a darn shame, maybe all the internet friends you have gathered over the years will help you out, when a push comes to a shove.   

My advice to you is this; as your money becomes tighter, don't dwell on the 250 large

[smiley]giga/lotf.gif[/smiley]     [smiley]giga/lotf.gif[/smiley]     [smiley]giga/lotf.gif[/smiley]      [smiley]giga/lotf.gif[/smiley]

Quote from: gr8player on June 11, 2015, 01:06:18 PM
Reach out, Johno, and I will respond in kind.

[smiley]giga/lotf.gif[/smiley]

Quote from: WalterMittyBUUUUT, the way I trend, I will catch certain trends that most of you out there would be left scratching their heads over.  I look for things that most bac players haven't yet dreamed about.
http://www.gamblersglen.com/cgi-bin/teemz/teemz.cgi?board=_master&action=opentopic&topic=651&forum=Baccarat_Message_Board

And this tool is driving the bus on behalf of the board?
[smiley]giga/lotf.gif[/smiley][smiley]giga/lotf.gif[/smiley]

Quote from: gr8player on June 11, 2015, 12:33:46 AMhave a gander at my Gr8Player's Progression (google it if interested), that is alot more conservative IMHO, and you aren't hurt with the typical W L W L betting results.  To this day, it's always, in some way, shape, or form, a vital part of my arsenal, as it plays into my statistical variances rather well....in point of fact, that's how I originally developed it.)

Yep it is so good, that Walter confessed he doesn't use it any-more, read = after leaving 1-ville, he pushed himself into mandatory situations of having to win more hands than he lost, couldn't achieve that, got badly burnt (probably in 4-ville), hence it was side-lined (dropped). 

Mr "hey hey" is another, can't explain a damn thing about his game, never has and never will.  And people wonder why it is preferable to run private forums than public ones.  Read - some serve no useful purpose.

But "hey hey", if it is posted on the web, then it's gotta be true. 

Next week I'll be at the MGM LV playing behind a rope, trying to make 100% of my buyin cake as per usual.

Geezz, I luv the internets hey hey.       

Quote from: soxfan on June 11, 2015, 06:37:06 AM
And more drivel from petey keating the wog-loving senile, old bisexual limey cunt. You jumped the shark on the wizard forum, but now like the garnabby you simply provide entertainment. So do keep up the good work, hey hey.

Wog loving, bisexual???

You really are a utter utter moron.  Keep drinking the Guinness and scoffing the cashews (surprising you still have still a chair that you can withstand your behind on after 10 yrs on the web).  Nothing like a good coronary to rid the world of trash. 

Pusti Malaka.

Quote from: soxfan on June 10, 2015, 11:33:18 PM
The john-O the clown show jumped the shark on the wizard forum a while back. The pathetic, senile old delusional limey twat is only good for entertainment now, like the garnabby, hey hey.

Yeah and hughie ferguson is a racist senile half breed, with a mental affliction that extends to his participation on the internet.  Cool dude, cat, cake, gravel, in ten years from now the cretin will be posting, "hey cats, define the long term? And posing questions about the Star progression, hey, hey, like the good for nothing MALAKA that he is, the ultimate example of monotonous with the relevant IQ to match, "hey hey hey"   

[smiley]toto/d200712191809426263.gif[/smiley]

Quote from: gr8player on May 26, 2015, 12:04:04 PM
Surely you're referring to your own "joke of a forum" that you presided over....tell us, will you, Johno....how's that going for ya? 

spiffing, how would you know if it is a joke or not, thankfully you ain't part of it. 

I'm hanging out in VIP rooms, that have hosts that cater to my needs, you are hiring a car to drive to AC with some fictitious friend, gambling fictitious amounts, thinking they can out guess coin flips over 53% of the time, no wonder Shackleford was just about to instigate a rule change to get rid of you.  Your deluded, any boozo can play a shoe and sometimes hit over 60%, 70%, only an idi0t would actually assume it meant something and then start labelling themselves an "experienced trender" .   

Quote from: gr8player on May 26, 2015, 12:04:04 PM

Nice seeing you again, Johno.  You're almost always wrong, but you're also almost always interesting.  Just....please, man....stay civil.

Not half as f00lish as you,

QuoteGiz, I can relate a story to you; happened a while back in a casino that I still play in.

A "suit" came down to watch us (my playing partner and myself) play. He was just observing, but made sure we knew that he was observing US. After the session was over, I walked over the CCC booth, and asked them one simple question: Can I, if I'm a consistent winner, be asked to leave by casino personnel? Their answer: No, sir, unless you are using a device or cheating. I said I was doing neither, and they told me not to worry about it. That's the last time I saw that "suit".

Another time, when I had asked a casino boss to "check my rating" because I was given unquestionably "short" comp dollars, I was told by him that it actually reads in their computer my EXPECTED WIN, not my EXPECTED LOSS. (Somehow, apparently, they calculate what you're generally expected to lose on a per session basis.) What I felt was amazing was that they actually had an "expected win" percentage for me in their computer.

http://www.gamblersglen.com/cgi-bin/teemz/teemz.cgi?board=_master&action=opentopic&topic=597&forum=Baccarat_Message_Board

[smiley]cxp/lol.gif[/smiley]

Do carry on, knocking mechanical modes when those with half a brain know there is absolute no difference.  You have to excuse me, I've better things to do with my time than let Walter who now has even more time on his hands impose on mine.  Should I wish to seriously discuss Baccarat, or simply chew the fat, I know the right place.

 

 

Quote from: Jimske on April 12, 2015, 04:02:10 AM
Yeah, we toy with it all the time.  Reducing runs a key to progressions.  The XXOO placement "supposed" to do just that.  ZZ tries to do it too.  Does it work?  I'd like to see an analysis but my guess is . . . nope!  Maybe using these two in conjuction and with a little guessing can help.

I was watching a Chinese player holding his own over a few sessions at Sky City in Kiwi-land (level Eight) recently.  He only flat bet, basically he "knew what he was doing", he had a plan, as opposed to staring at the score board, engage in massive debate and then follow the herd. 


As he didn't speak English, conversation on the balcony was rather difficult.  But I got the gist of what he was saying, mocking those that are forever digging into more and more pockets and continually buying in. 

His MM was easy, flat bet, his bet selection appeared to be XXOO, come rain or shine, XXOO (every hand), not that I have considered it myself, because to be right once in a 4 hand sequence, you have odds of 16/1 in your favour, to be right every time in a 4 hand sequence, the odds are 16/1 against.  Perhaps flat betting minimises the sting of being 100% out of sync occasionally, never really tested it myself.

But if anybody is keen to run  few of their own shoes, maybe post up your findings. 

Quote from: Bayes on December 30, 2014, 12:14:24 PM

Example 2

In an even chance there are 4 equally likely outcomes taking 2 decisions at a time, i.e., BB, PP, PB, BP. What is the chance of at least one repeat in 4 decisions (note that this equates to 8 hands, not 4, because each outcome consists of two hands)

N = 4 and r = 4, so

[math]P(repeat)=\frac{4^4(4-4)!-4!}{4^4(4-4)!} = 0.906[/math]

or a little over 90%.

You can find a scientific calculator here.

Thought you might find this shoe interesting, relevant to the 90.6% figure above, played last week.

I shall write out the results from left to right using rows of 8 (I approached this shoe using column of eight).

My prime bet option is irrelevant, a secondary "Birthday Paradox" bet option was used, along with other opportunistic options.


BPBBBPPP

PPBPBPPP

BPPPPPPP

PBBBBPPP ("BP" column failure)

PPPBPBPP

PBBPBBPP (2nd "BP" failure, also this 8 hand sequence is same as last but one group of 8, 256/1 !!)

BPPBPPBB (3rd shoe "BP" failure, also mirror image of prior 8 hand sequence??)

PBPPBBBP (4th "BP" failure and extreme rare event of 3 consecutive none-matching pairs group of 8 hands??

PPP


Granted Eirescott catered for prevention of ambiguous no-bets situations (BP BB now bet B), but still bleak to say the least,


Here is what the shoe looked like when recorded normally;

B
P
BBB
PPPPP
B
P
B
PPP
B
PPPPPPPP
BBBB
PPPPPP
B
P
B
PPP
BB
P
BB
PP
B
PP
B
PP
BB
P
B
PP
BBB
PPPP


Fair to say, I initially enjoyed amazing success incorporating this approach into my game, now however, rapidly trying to wean myself from even tracking it.

WOW, look at the ratio!!  It's only a loan the pitboss was over heard saying.

No return to the mean for this shoe after 10 hands, yes I played it, but in hind-sight not aggressive enough.

[attach=1]

Quote from: ezmark on April 18, 2015, 01:21:02 AM
In most states and countries so called Gaming Commissions are there for the casino management not the players.

True.

Quote from: tdx on April 17, 2015, 10:46:36 PM
I don't trust those machines at resorts world in Queens.......only way you can be sure you are getting an honest bac game is at a brick and mortar casino.

All cards have a RF identifier so a bac machine can pick any card it needs depending on how much money is bet on Player or Banker.   

Real weird things happen in brick and mortar casino's, place a massive bet on the Banker natural 9 to the player as you are passed the banker cards to squeeze.  Earlier today, the Player hits N9 for three successive hands, nothing unusual about that, except the N9 each time consisted of 6 + 3 WTF. 

I'm not suggesting anything dodgy was going on, but it is my understanding the cards used in conjunction with angle eye auto-shufflers have invisible markers on the cards which are read as the card leaves the shoe, then the dealer presses the button which confirms the hand and nothing has been swapped during the player handling.     

Quote from: Sputnik on April 15, 2015, 06:03:53 PM
"Regression toward the mean simply says that, following an extreme random event, the next random event is likely to be less extreme. In no sense does the future event "compensate for" or "even out" the previous event, though this is assumed in the gambler's fallacy (and variant law of averages). Similarly, the law of large numbers states that in the long term, the average will tend towards the expected value, but makes no statement about individual trials. For example, following a run of 10 heads on a flip of a fair coin (a rare, extreme event), regression to the mean states that the next run of heads will likely be less than 10, while the law of large numbers states that in the long term, this event will likely average out, and the average fraction of heads will tend to 1/2. By contrast, the gambler's fallacy incorrectly assumes that the coin is now "due" for a run of tails, to balance out."

Well stated.  I was discussing this with sqzbox earlier, soon afterwards I was walking past a Baccarat table and noticed an 8 Player streak, a rare / extreme event I would conclude, this was followed by a few chops, then a 16 P streak,

(only took me 20 mins to type that sentence due to lockups, hey Vic if you produce great software, why is the back engine of this site such a bag of sh1te?)

Quote from: Bac2Bac on April 17, 2015, 04:40:28 AM
My play has me believing:

-winning 3 units each and every day= plausible
     -and with 100 unit bankroll = highly unlikely

-playing 365 days x 3U = 1095units/year and risking only 100U would be bliss

-"averaging" 3U a day is attainable using :RolexWatch's "hard" play among many others.

If I could guarantee myself 3 units per day without risking nerve wrecking draw-downs, without the need of a 5 figure bankroll, I would play 500 units.  Alas I can't, so don't even go there, also sometimes I lose! 

1095 @ 500 = half a mill yearly income, yeah okay I'll be having some of that, if it was more than just a fantasy.

Quote from: horus on April 04, 2015, 09:04:30 AM
Thanks R-W for an interesting idea. I had to read through that a few times to get it.

deliberate on my part.

Quote from: horus on April 04, 2015, 09:04:30 AMI remember reading some of your posts where you used a kind of an inverted mirror effect and things could get particularly hairy with that as well.

Betting against symmetry, off the menu after seeing a few 30+ hand reverse mirrors.  The problem with it is you need to win within three bets and having the discpline to stop when you don't, you can get sucked into thinking it becomes more due and continue betting into the oblivion.  More  importantly is that you are now anthropomorphizing the shoe / results, and I'm trying to wean myself off such modes of play, because they lack rational logic and don't make sense other than to yourself. 

Horus, a year or so ago when we we discussing pairs.    BB = 1, BP = 2, PB = 3, PP =4

Written in columns of 2's. then betting that the same pair number would not repeat in the same two hand sequence every 8 hand group (I called it non-binary repeat).

Example

1-1-3-3
B-B-P-P-
B-B-B-B-

You now now bet the opposite of 1-1-3-3, so the bet sequence would run, PP (opposite of BB), etc, stopping after the first win.

The average win rate against my own 100 shoes came back at a massive 74%, I was staggered and the feeling of elation which lasted for 9 minutes was amazing.  In the 10th minute I realised the error of my ways, I simply looked at the results as pairs, as opposed to the bet technique requiring TWO BETS to snare any win, a crucial over-sight.  But hey, who cares, maybe if I do it properly it might come back at 55~60%, that still makes it a winner, or maybe I just need to be extra creative regarding MM?

Few years later the penny finally dropped, all I was in effect doing was taking an 8 hand sequence and betting it won't repeat, actually it isn't that bad but could get ugly (rare event).  Now for those that have long memories, you might remember Izak once describing a system of his, were he used the analogy of a white van driving past a spot at the exact same time and it is unlikely to happen that many times.   So I started applying that principal to this bet selection, for a specific spot as an additional bet option.  In other words you wait for an event to repeat, in this case a repeating binary number, then bet it won't happen three times, if it does, then it won't repeat four times.  The true beauty of it is every time you make a move, you have a 75% chance of grabbing a win and a 25% chance of losing both bets.   Pears are nice to eat. 

     

Quote from: horus on April 03, 2015, 10:59:41 PM
Here is about 1000 hands worth of my idea. It did hit one sticky patch....but apart from that performed ok.

worst -2.
best +40.

It is not that simplistic, there are three bets involved in securing a win, therefore some sort of progression needed, which then leads to "how do you recover from any single failure". 

Example, bet against number #2, BBP involves betting PPB, you can't flat bet it.