Quote from: mahatma on October 20, 2015, 01:55:51 PM
Let's not forget the email you sent me many years ago stating you bet $10 units, but on the boards it's $400 units.  You are defiantly a prized crank Roberto, tell me how can somebody who has lost $250,000 consider themselves to be a long term winner, fool?

No, I think you're the one that is "forgetting"....forgetting the fact that you've already openly admitted that you LIED about that bogus "$10 units" e-mail; it never existed, not any $10 units nor any e-mail stating such nonsense.

So, give it up, Mahatma....Mahatma???, who the heck is Mahatma???....holy heck, Johno/Rolex, exactly how many aliases have you used on all of these sites...give it up, already, and seek the help that you so desperately need.

But, one piece of advice:

Don't dare let the psychiatrist charge you for each one of your phony aliases, it would cost you an arm and a leg!LOL

Oh, wait a minute....you could always borrow the arm from your Rolex Watch alias and the leg from your Mahatma alias.LOL

Quote from: Jimske on October 19, 2015, 09:39:36 PM
Yup, nice to get losses back.  Good for you.  We all have to recoup losses.  If we don't then we end up losing long term.  (sidebar: is it my computer or does this site always freeze while typing?)  So isn't that kinda like everybody's game?  It can be done in different ways but unless you plan to win a lot more hands than lose you're gonna have to increase your bet, right?
 
I get what Rolex is saying about proof and stats.  There is none (excepting asymbacc of course).  Again saying the same old thing - it's a guessing and betting game.  When you talk about provable stats and variance then unless you're willing to share the proof why not just make a trip report and be done with it? 

In generic terms unless you're playing a completely mechanical placement and betting game you basically start with a structure based on existing past bias and choose a betting style.  When it goes south you make switches to the placement and possibly bet style to recoup.  If it doesn't work out you cut your losses.  Unless you're like the typical gambler trying to make a huge kill you know what your limit of losses tend to be and recognize that.

If the shoe is conforming to your placement style then you make some bigger bets hoping to maximize a profit.  Again, you should recognize general high limits and quit that shoe at some general high point.

The above is just the basics of trending.  I play a trend and grind game.  I win most shoes and sessions.  Not a lot.  Sometimes I kick myself for getting out too early.  Reason I do because generally after I quit I sit and record the rest of the shoe. 

IMO if you play enough you should be able to recognize certain trends that ocurr in this game and attempt to make money on them.  Many shoes just non-conforming so you got to just get out hopefully with a small win.  If you play this way.

As far as bet selection goes pick anything you want or prefer.  Know it's nemesis so you can see the game clearly and maybe back off a bit when you see the nemesis start to develop.  I don't like bet selections that make it difficult to follow the trend

Spot-on, Jimske, as per usual. 

(And, believe me, it wasn't easy to spot it this morning, what with Johno/Rolex going on one of his "I'm obsessed with gr8player" binges yet again, and posting his pure nonsense behind every one of my threads in this forum.  Wow....that's very obviously a man with some deep, deep issues....he'd rather attack me than add anything of value of his own.  Ever wonder why?  Could it be because he HAS NOTHING OF VALUE to add?!  He knows ONLY how to attack me....hmmm, I wonder....how much does the casino pay you off for that?!)

Anyhow, back to business....insightful post, Jimske; those that trend and those that grind know it all too well.  That said, there are two points I'd like to expound on:

1.)  "Sometimes I kick myself for getting out too early....after I quit I record the rest of the shoe".

I would ask of you, Jimske:  Why?  Why wait around and record the results AFTER you've decided to terminate the session?  Could it be that you are seeking affirmation of your decision, and are hoping to see that your plays would have lost?  I must tell you, I do not like that idea, for nothing good can come of it, IMHO.

The results BEFORE I sit down to play do matter to me, but the results after I terminate the session do not.  This game is tough enough, and our "entry/exit" strategies are certainly a part of that; the last thing I want to find myself doing at the table is "second-guessing" myself.  With that in mind, whenever I've decided to end the session, I color up and leave. 

2.)  Variance

Plainly stated, I think your play involves betting substantially more hands that I do.  I think the reason for that is, again simply stated, you prefer to be "onto more trends" than I do.  (I have a couple in my preferred bet selection process; I believe you have more than that.)  That all said, I am of the firm opinion that by "concentrating" my efforts on only those couple of plays puts me in better control of my variance statistics.  And you know me well enough, Jimske, to know the importance that I place on variance statistics; for bet selection processes will resolve almost equally (I say "almost" because virtual losses WILL boost their overall strike rates for me) BUUTTT the "bet size manipulations" that accompany true variance stats will see me winning more money when I win than I lose when I lose, over the long term.

But I simply cannot conclude this post without highlighting the fact that, for the most part, Jimske's post is spot-on....not just for me, but for any serious trender/grinder.  His "IMO if you play enough you should be able to recognize certain trends that occur in this game and attempt to make money on them.  Many shoes just non-conforming so you have to just get out hopefully with a small win.  If you play this way."  There's no IF about it, Jimske; you and I both know what it takes.  We don't need the same bet placement strategy and we don't need the same money management process to know what true trending/grinding requires....the patience and the discipline and the consistency.

Stay well, my friend.

Quote from: Rolex-Watch on October 19, 2015, 12:46:01 AM
Now if somebody posted, "hey what do you think of this, bet, bet, skip, skip, etc, etc" or "I've won xx amount over the the last xx sessions, by doing xyz"

I certainly have posted about "bet, bet, skip, skip"; I authored a thread regarding virtual losses, which is the very essence of "skip, skip, bet, bet".

And, again, I certainly have posted about "I've won xx amount over the last xx sessions, by doing xyz"; heck, part of that is right here in this very thread, where I explained my "Loss Eradication" strategy, and how I went about it.

Look, Johno/Rolex, you've simply got to try to accept the fact that you still have a lot to learn about this game, especially as it pertains to getting the better of it over the long term.  Frankly, your absolute naivete regarding the approach to this game, exactly what is does (and does not) take to get the better of it, is absolutely astonishing.  You, my friend, have learned absolutely nothing over the years....absolutely nothing.  There are other followers of my posts and enthusiasts of my method of play that are benefiting so much more than you are; all because you refuse to learn, and you refuse to acknowledge that I, gr8player, the man you just love to hate, hold the keys to true, long term success at this game and yes, I DO prove it with each one of my posts.

What, exactly, do you want from me?  My actual bet selection process?  Why should that matter to you; you're well-aware that they all resolve to 50/50.  My money-management?  My Gr8Player's Progression is available freely over the 'net.  My posts are clear as to how to build a mode a play that will beat this game over the long term, and there are countless players benefiting from such insight.  Except you:

No, you'd rather get nothing for yourself but jealously and envy....it's so obvious that it hurts.  Pity, really.  Rather than learn to seriously improve your game, like so many other members over the years have from me, you'd rather mope and pout, pout and mope.  Well, my friend, everyone is sick of it.  So either get on board or hit the skids, the choice is all yours.

Thanks to both Victor and the Soxster for your kind acknowledgements.  Always appreciated.  We are, after all, a sort of "band of brothers" in this forum, sharing the same common goal of long-term success.  Stay well, all.

Before anyone else might bring it up to counter my "Loss Eradication" strategy, let's bring to light the "Gambler's Fallacy" theory:

Gambler's Fallacy says, in a nutshell, that pretty much nothing is ever "due".  That it is a grave mistake to believe that the past could ever be helpful in predicting the future, and that those that believe so are doomed to eventual failure.  In a nutshell, that is the essence of the "Gambler's Fallacy" theory; that "chasing losses" from the past is fruitless in the prediction of future results.

OK.  I get that.  It certainly does make alot of sense.  For the majority of players, and the majority of modes and/or styles of play, I can certainly understand the "Gambler's Fallacy" application.

BUUUTTT (oh, c'mon, you knew there'd be a "but"), that all said, I am of the firm opinion that my play is NOT applicable to any "Gambler's Fallacy".  You see, my friends, I do not "blindly bet into" any past results, neither failures (losses) nor successes(wins).  Rather, I play into my statistics.  My betting, and my "adjustments" thereof, both bet selection- and bet sizing-wise, is all calculated within certain parameters of my statistics and corresponding variances.  Let me repeat that most important distinction:  My betting, and my "adjustments" thereof, both bet selection-and bet sizing-wise, is all calculated within certain parameters of my statistics and corresponding variances. 

And that, my friends, should never and can never be neither construed nor confused with any "Gambler's Fallacy" argument.

Thusly, my style of play, my patient and disciplined and consistent and statistically-sound style of play will stand the test of time.  And that's the only test I care about; the long-term test of time....for beating this game over the long haul.

I choose to both approach and play this game much like the casino does; over the long term, with the statistics and variances that are PROVEN to work and provide an advantage.  And when one has the advantage, then time becomes their ally. 

OK.  Those that follow my posts are aware of my recent winning streak; I hadn't lost a session in quite some time.  And those same people would also know, through my posts, that I was concerned about the sustainability of that streak; so much so that I even lowered my betting units in order to lessen any damage from the impending correction.  My bet selection process is a good one, but it ain't that good, and so the downward correction was imminent.  Well, witness this past trip:

On Thursday afternoon's session, I could not win a hand.  Bad beat after bad beat, I simply could not win a hand, losing the first 8 out of 9 bets I made (at one point, 7 losses in a row!).  Now, even with the "expected/imminent" downward correction, let me tell you, it ain't fun and it is frustrating.  Prepared is one thing, but losing is another, and always hurts.  I tried battling through it, but every time it looked as if my plays might be picking up, back down they went.  As did my session bankroll...as I finished with a 20-unit loss.  (Sidenote:  I buy in for 20 units, and that is, however rare, my absolute max loss limit.)

That, my friends, is alot for me; as you know, I always err on the side of caution.  I could have, and SHOULD HAVE, quit the session when I had battled back to a minus 5, but no, I am so used to the battle and so used to skirting (read: getting back to "even") these bad sessions that I played on, but it was simply not meant to be.  So, a minus 20 it is, and that was that.

Well, now, let's get on to my "loss eradication" strategy:

You guys know that I play a "variance" game.  My variances are proven stats, and I trust in them fully.  So, with that in mind, how do I handle that 20-unit blowout from earlier that day?  Buy ramping up my units size THREE-FOLD.  That's right, 3 times the size of my units at the prior session.  I felt there simply ain't no way I'm going to go any further than the 11-below (I lost 11 more bets that I had won on that losing session), and so now the time is ripe for recoup.  But, I still didn't want to have to exceed my normal win goal strategy; so the only answer was to ramp it up.  And ramp it up I did:

(Sidenote:  In fact, I was so confident in my upward-variance correction at this next session, that I bought in for only 10 units, as these were much-larger units than I'd normally play with.)

OK.  So what do you think happened on Thursday night?  Well, I bet you didn't guess this:  I didn't play.  Oh, don't get me wrong, I went to the tables.  In fact, at one point, I had my money and my player's card in hand, ready to buy in.  But, I never pulled the trigger.  I simply didn't like what the shoes looked like, and I simply wasn't "feeling it".  And, maybe, just maybe, Thursday wasn't my day.  So, after 2 full hours of simply watching, I called it a day, and left.  I would play, however, with no hesitation, on Friday (yesterday):

Well, things started rather well.  I won my first two bets, and the first 4 out of five.  But then lost a few, and actually, at one point in the session, I was down 2 units.  But, I proceeded to win the last 7 bets I made, and the first 2 of those bets were in "2-ville" of my Gr8Player's Progression.  All said and done, I won 6 units and colored up.

Total loss for the trip:  $100.  A stinkin' hundred bucks.  Heck, I TIP that in the steakhouse when my wife my kids join me.  So, bottom line:  I effectively "eradicated" that 20-unit loss from the day before.  Done and done.

And that is the name of my variance-based game:  Loss Eradication.

You see, my friends, when you play a mode of game that can effectively eliminate those rare but still nasty losses, ALL YOU ARE LEFT WITH IS PURE PROFIT ON YOUR EASIER, WINNING SESSIONS.  (Sidenote:  Well, wait, not ALL of those profitable sessions are pure profit, as this last one was for recoup purposes only, hence the much-higher unit size.  But, still, certainly MOST of my winning sessions are, in fact, for pure profit, because, usually, I can battle back from the more difficult ones, and quit at either even or a very minor loss.)

Look, losses happen. Nothing much we can do about it, so best learn to accept it.  But, that said, if one wishes to get the better of this game, over the long run, one NEEDS an EFFECTIVE LOSS-ERADICATION strategy.  And, in my humble opinion, that can only come with a just-as-effective VARIANCE PLAY strategy.  Knowing your limits...both on the up- AND the down-side...is both vital and imperative.  For only then can you manipulate your bet sizing to your ADVANTAGE.

And, as always, I wish it for all of you.

Fine post, Jimske....spot-on.  You're effectively illustrating good, conservative, grind-style play.  Nice job.

Oh, and don't fret over your "3 units per shoe average", either.  That's about THE number for any serious grinder, so better for you to revel in it than to rue it.  You're doing just fine.  Trying to improve upon that number will, most likely, leave your play "exposed" somewhere else (the "robbing Peter to pay Paul" principle, in effect)....much better to accept it.

Stay well.

A "tight bet selection" is one with a tight variance, where the swings, both up and down (more on that later), are relatively manageable.

A "tight bet selection that wins more than it loses" is one where, BECAUSE the variance is manageable, allows the player to adjust their bet sizes at the most opportune times in order to facilitate recoup and/or profit.

What about that do you not get?  Is it over your head?  Can you not understand how the adults (read: the serious players) play this game?

IF you do not understand, feel free to ask questions.  IF you do not CARE to understand, just hold your tongue and go play somewhere else.  Either way, try to be more constructive around here than destructive.

Now, back to the "more on that later" note from my opening sentence:

Variance play can be rather easy, and it can be rather tough.  Easy when it's downside is controlled, and a minor bet sizing adjustment puts us into full recoup and/or profit.  The tough part?  The tough part is what I'm going through now....a runaway upswing in my variance.

Now, I can hear the groans from the other side of my computer...."you're not complaining about winning too much, are you gr8player?"  Answer:  No, I'm not.  I'm actually complaining about winning too little.  I'll explain:

The past few weeks have seen my strike rates go so well, and my variance so high, that I have never needed more than "2-ville" in my Gr8Player's Progression.  In fact, if I wanted to wait it out that long, I'd be winning just by flat-betting over the last few weeks.  But I use my conservative prog just to get either my recoup or my win as efficiently as possible.  I can do that with confidence because my numbers (read: stats) prove it so.

But, because of my ever-rising variance, I have lowered my base bet.  Let me repeat that:  Because I have, in essence, been doing so well recently, I HAVE LOWERED MY BASE BET.  Why?  Because of the impending correction.  I feel as if it simply is a matter of time; my bet selection process cannot possibly perform this well.  But, as I await the drop-off, I'm now making 40% less dollars than I normally would with my usual betting unit every time I win.  And I haven't lost in a while.  (I know, I know...what a terrible problem to have...it should happen for all of us, right?)

But, seriously, here's the rub, and here's where it gets a bit dicey:  They say (and we all know who THEY are) that a bet selection method will rise AND fall in equal proportion.  Which basically is saying that as well as it's performing now is exactly HOW BAD it could be performing in the near future....and that, my friends, is a notion that does not sit well with me at all.

My only solace is that my method is more a "process" than it is a simple "selection" method, and maybe that will exclude it from the inevitable downfall.  I don't know.  But, what I do know is that I'll continue to be ever-vigilant of any real variance down-swing and try to bail at the most opportune time.  In the meantime, I'll continue starting all sessions with my lowered unit size at least until my variance adjusts downward somewhat.  I really have no choice in the matter, my strike rates cannot remain this high forever. 

And so I adjust my play accordingly.
And I hope for the best.
As always, for all of us.  Stay well.

Quote from: Rolex-Watch on October 02, 2015, 10:43:42 PM
It's all Gambles Fallacy that exists only in the mind driving the pen..

Painting with a rather large brush whenever the Gamblers Fallacy or the House Edge is mentioned; I'd like to have figured you to be a bit above that commonality.  Wow, it's a wonder we play the game at all.

Quote from: Rolex-Watch on October 02, 2015, 10:43:42 PM
I have reams of your quotes over the years gr8...

Hmm...I find that both strange and amusing at the same time...I, myself, have exactly ZERO of yours.

Quote from: Rolex-Watch on October 02, 2015, 10:43:42 PM
Magical bet selections that provide more wins than losses? 

Nothing "magical" about it, my friend.  Rather than your obvious petty jealousy/envy, why not put your efforts into something positive, like developing a better, more efficient bet selection process, perhaps?  It's doable, but you've got to put in the work, and then you need the patience, discipline and composure to put it into action and profit....nah, come to think of it, it would take a whole lotta "magic" for you to get it.  You just aren't cut out for it, and I'm most likely wasting my time even responding to your nonsense.  Take care.

Thanks, Soxster, always appreciated.

Your post in this thread regarding "tailoring your money management process to the average w/l clusters of your bet selection process" is spot-on as well, an observation that resonates well among all serious players. Great job....and stay well.

Quote from: Rolex-Watch on October 01, 2015, 09:52:31 AM
These kind of approaches are contentious and IMO seriously flawed, because the cards are devoid of any memory, it may be VL's for you and VW's for somebody else.

No, not really....you see, the "VW's for somebody else" do not matter, only the "VL's for you" are of any statistical importance.

Quote from: Rolex-Watch on October 01, 2015, 09:52:31 AM
Perhaps win for a month playing a particular method, after which continual get your as$ handed to you on a plate (people have a real problem understanding the concept of; right & wrong side of a bell-curve), when you've experienced this often enough, the penny drops, you're playing a game of chance and what you do is no superior or inferior than what anybody else is doing other than the signature of the losing pattern.

Ahh, but it's that all-important "other than the signature of the losing pattern"....therein lies the rub, my friend.

You see, in order to break down this game of 50/50 chances into a, shall I say, "beatable" one, one must develop a bet selection process that mitigates the damage from their nemesis and its losing pattern(s).  Or, in other words, a relatively controlled variance, so that we can, with some semblance of confidence, make our play as profitable as possible.

My play, in short, needs a relatively high strike rate combined with relatively short losing jags.  Plain and simple, my play is not designed to capture a single win out of three or four or five attempts, and my money management cannot support any such notion.  So I need to be right more than I am wrong, or, alternatively, I need my losing jags to be confined to certain parameters, otherwise I am doomed for failure.

And so the birth of my "virtual loss" strategy, as so the birth of my preferred bet selection process, and so the birth of my money management progression.  All intended to get me to my win goals....conservative as they are....as efficiently as possible.

I don't buy in for any "12-hour marathons"; rather, I'm there to get from point A to point B as efficiently as possible.  The off-shoot of that philosophy allows me to play for higher units, hence the conservative win goals.  While I've always stated that one needs to keep their unit sizes within their own personal "comfort zone", it is just as important to make sure that their play is "worthwhile", as that will see that player accepting any and all wins as gratifying.

And so it all works rather well for me.  That does not mean that my sort of play is for everyone, nor does it mean that my play is the right way and anyone else's is the wrong way.  I play to my personal strengths; I would suggest to anyone else to play to their's.

Experience has taught me exactly what I want from this game and exactly what I need from this game; it was only after that awareness that I was able to develop the procedure to attain it.  Now, lest anyone think any differently, while these words are relatively easy to say and to type, the process was (and still is, in fact) an arduous one.  One must take this game very seriously in order to become a serious player, know that.  I am ever aware, at every single turn-of-the-cards, that I am but one bad bet away from blowing this whole thing to pieces.  And so I remain steadfastly consistent, patient, and disciplined.

As always, I wish it for all of you.  Stay well.

Hello, fellas.  Please excuse my disappearance for the past few days, as I was busy (winning, I might add) at the Borgata last Wed thru Fri and then again Sun thru Tues.  I am very obviously in the midst of a positive variance and have been winning rather regularly with almost flat bets, as I've needed no higher than "2-ville" in my Gr8Player's Progression.

Good, constructive conversation going on here; well done, all. 

It appears, as ABG pointed out, mostly discussion about "the same ideas with different perspectives".  Nothing wrong with that; in fact, that's most likely the best anyone could hope for on any public Baccarat forum.

To me, virtual losses are the simplest and easiest and cheapest way to CONTROL VARIANCE. 

Did you notice what I said in the first paragraph of this post?:  "I am very obviously in the midst of a POSITIVE VARIANCE"....

Variance is the name of the game.  I've come to terms with that fact a long, long time ago.  Control variance and you control the game (of course, this all begins with controlling oneself).

As to virtual losses, we ALL use them, even if you might be unaware of it.  How so?  Well, I'll answer that with this question:  Does anyone here bet every hand?  Me?  I know of NO SERIOUS PLAYER that bets every hand.  And so, we wait.  We pick our spots.  We await triggers.  Now, ask yourself, if you will:  What happens in that interim?  Are you not witnessing "virtual losses" go by while you're awaiting your preferred plays to appear?  Sure you are.

I've been preaching Patience and Discipline for years now....ever wonder why?  Well, now you know.  Learn to control, at least best you're able to, your VARIANCE.  Then the game is yours.

Hello, Jimske; nice job on that posted shoe.  I played it out as well, and finished up with a +7 using my preferred bet placement strategy.  After winning 2-out-of-my first 3 bets, I needed only flat bets (even though I do utilize my Gr8Player's Progression, I never had the need to leave "1-ville", or base, so only flat bets were necessary) the entire shoe.

I feel compelled to add that this shoe was one were I didn't need to await any virtual losses, because my plays were prevalent from the get-go.  My virtual loss strategy is designed to get me through the more-difficult periods; this shoe, fortunately, posed no such problem.

Lastly, Jimske, while your example of virtual loss usage is not quite the way I see it or use it, I do like your incorporation of same.  Nice job.

As I stated in my prior posts, any virtual loss strategy is better...much better, in fact...than none at all.  "None at all" leaves one as a "sitting duck" at the shoe (or portion thereof) where your "nemesis" appears as dominant.  The virtual loss strategy and the no-bet option that accompanies it is a very vital part of my arsenal; the patient and disciplined player can and will reap the rewards of such play.

(Sidenote:  I'm off to the Borgata Wed thru Fri, I'll catch up with you guys on Sat.)  Stay well.

Hello, Alrelax.

Your tone is that of a man that is upset....upset about what?....of that I am unsure.

But allow me simply to say that, no, I do not "sit at the table charting/plotting/planning for say 20 to 40 hands while adding up my virtual losses".  Rather, Al, I play.  If and when my preferred bet selection is "triggered in", I play and, yes, even bet, with REAL MONEY, for it.

That said, I do utilize my "virtual loss" option (and the "no-bet" option that accompanies same) when that situation arises, as well.  "That situation"?  That situation is when my preferred plays are either not being triggered and/or not hitting.  And then, most importantly, I'll adjust my betting and my money management in order to maximize on my current "loss statistics", especially when it appears as if my plays are on the "upswing".

Call it "virtual losses", call it "money management", call it a "gray elephant" if it pleases you; just know that whatever you may wish to label it, it all works very, very well for me and my style of play.

So, if I were you, Al, I'd try not to get myself so upset about the modes of play that others might use, even if they are vastly different from yours.  If you'd simply take the time to view my posts right here in this very thread, I addressed that issue earlier when I stated that you (and anyone else) should play the style that they are most comfortable with.  Let's try not to turn a good thread with a solid message into any simple child's-play pissing match, shall we?  Take care.

Quote from: Jimske on September 20, 2015, 04:24:02 PM
I'm in agreement with Rolex.  Virtual losses are a means of attempting to get statistical advantage.  Whether one is monitoring SD, RTM, personal variance or even gambling for or against limits from a curve from a particular bet selection.  No, they're not infallible and their success or lack thereof may depend on other factors such as bankroll, table limits, and MM.  Another tool for the serious non-recreational gambler.Yes and no Andre, IMO.  If Virtual losses are used in a structural way they will indeed change the variance.  But if used in, shall we say, a more random fashion then they will become part of an unchanging variance.

Having said all that I generally don't use virtual losses in my live play but I have practiced with them when looking at play options and do think they can be profitable.

J

First off, Jimske, welcome back!  Either I missed it, or I can't recall reading anything of yours in quite a while.  Nice to see you posting again.

Now, with that out of the way, let's look at your:  "I generally don't use virtual losses"....

....are you sure about that?  You see, every time you "sit out" and "no-bet" when your "nemesis" pattern/bet selection appears as dominant in any portion of the shoe, you are, at the very least, attempting to "avoid losses" (read: absorb "virtual losses").  So you may be doing it even subconsciously, or maybe unaware of it, but I'm rather certain that at some point or another, you're in "loss avoidance mode".  You simply mightn't label it as such.  But, my friend, labels don't matter; only the "end game" matters, the end game where we come out on top in this game.

Stay well, and stay "logged in", for I've always respected both your play and your opinion.