Good post.

"..You also have to have a certain amount of buy-in as a one-time event that is realistic as compared to your bankroll and a concrete refusal to buy-in a second time if you happened to lose the original buy-in amount.  That should be considered always 100% of the time, your stop loss figure.  This way when you win and apply something along the lines of my 1/3rd-1/3rd-1/3rd money management system,.."

For me personally the key to winning long term is how we handle the bold sentence above. The more often one plays the more imperative it is to have a solid "L" plan in place.


Continued Success,

As alrelax has mentioned the Tote Board is a great invention and designed to make players focus on the wrong type of outcomes: streaks. Red vs Blue, same-side streaks vs opps,...etc. Even the rectangular shape was clever.

I frequently have friends across the country that are well versed in games such as Texas Holdem, Poker-type games, Miss Stud,....etc. They have little knowledge of Bac but will walk through a table pit and snap a pic of a Bac Tote Board and send it to me and say something like: Mr Fu you would have scored a homerun on this streak.

The streak will always be a same-side streak or Opp streak. One in particular recently sent a
long P-streak of 12. However, what he didn't see was a perfect 3-1 streak(BBB P BBB P BBB P BBB) of 15 just before that and it was one that was easy to see at the beginning(if one was looking for a streak different than same-side or opps).


Continued Success,

Hi albalaha--You may be correct. Though my opinion differs.
In my opinion this hurdle above the current (3/21/23) range of 28.4k will be crucial and determine if it pulls back or continues. In my opinion it will pull back in the near future (caveat emptor my friend).

My research suggests the current price has been largely manipulated and "the big players" will tamp it back down to a lower range so they can pound the bounce and siphon money from "the small players".
There is evidence of this occurrence at several levels and most recently when it was in the 16.5--18.5 range. It is much easier to profit on the bounce/rebound in a defined range than to buy/hold.

This opinion above coupled with my theory that many additional banks (at least in the USA) are in bad shape and also exposed to crypto (directly and indirectly). Plus the USA Feds recently bailed them out(so they now have  more cash to put into hi-risk investments) creates a tumultuous environment for the near future.

My grreeaat uncle once told me, "Grasshopper: Friends don't let friends buy crypto."



Continued Success,

AsymBacGuy above in post #773.

"...Say that at a random coin flip succession you have to choose from one of those HTHHTT or HHHHHH pattern coming out first.
All intermediate patterns do not count, so you will win or lose just when one of the two patterns will show up first.
Different studies, albeit being made on different patterns lenght, have demonstrated that the former HTHHTT pattern will show up by a lesser 'waiting time' than the HHHHHH pattern, despite of having the same probability to appear.

So we do not know about all other patterns coming out, but we do know that we're favorite to first cross the HTHHTT pattern than the HHHHHH pattern, so in some way the 'waiting time' matters. ..."

I agree Asym and wait-time distance between shorter patterns are even more important IMO(as related to Bac). With that said I also think we need to be cautious when comparing a coin toss vs a near-5050 proposition such as so called even-chance games like Bac. Due mainly to how the casino treats a Push and Tie results, which obviously a coin toss has neither.


In my opinion one of the best pieces of research on coin tosses and similar probability events was written by a Dr. R.S. Nickerson back in early 2000s I believe. In part below (I will post whole article once we have capability to upload pics and such).


Reasoning about probabilities can be tricky. Some probability problems
are notoriously opaque, even occasionally for people well-versed in prob␂ability theory. Examples include
• the three-doors or car-or-goat problem ("the Monty Hall problem") [Vos
Savant 1990a; 1990b],
• the sibling-gender problem [Bar-Hillel and Falk 1982],
• the condemned-prisoner problem [Gardner 1961, 226–232],
• Bertrand's paradox [Nickerson 2005], and
• the exchange paradox (two-envelope problem) [Nickerson and Falk 2006].



The UMAP Journal 28 (4) (2007) 503–532. ␂c Copyright 2007 by COMAP, Inc. All rights reserved.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use
is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial
advantage and that copies bear this notice.

https://www.thelines.com/best-march-madness-bracket-contests/#:~:text=5%20Best%20Free%20March%20Madness%20Bracket%20Contests%20For,ESPN%20Tournament%20Challenge%20...%206%20Honorable%20mentions%20

The Greatest Baccarat Wins of All Time
Place   Baccarat Player   Amount Won
1.   Group of Asian high rollers   $55 million
2.   Akio Kashiwagi   $15 million
3.   Lin Hasan   $12.9 million
4.   Phil Ivey   $9.6 million
5.   John W. Gates   $1 million
6.      Kung Fu Bac     Unknown

https://casinotalk.com/the-greatest-baccarat-wins-of-all-time/

Interesting question asym /alrelax

alrelax:
"First of all, unlike many others, I rarely wager against another player because he is losing, etc.  I do know numerous (a lot) of players do exactly that."

I don't recall ever wagering against a player because he was losing. Though occasionally I have suspected that a player was wagering anti-kfb because I was losing. It wouldn't bother me if that occurred.
Nor do I wager with a player because he or she is winning. If Im at a table with a known player that I consider a veteran and student of the game(In other words I value their opinion), then I may glance at their bet selection and wager size/that wager size in proportion to their typical size,...etc. Especially if I was prepping to wager large and their selection was contrary. I may ask them: What are you thinking or how strong do you feel,...etc. Though I wouldn't switch I may consider their contrarian opinion as a nudge that maybe I shouldn't feel that strongly for my selection. But for the most part their selection would only have minimal effect on my selection.

alrelax:
"..Second, I rather play at a table with numerous other players for camaraderie purposes.  I have won a heck of a lot more than I would have, by engaging in strong  camaraderie with others.  As far as losing while engaging in camaraderie, so what, you risk your money with no guarantees anyway..."

I'm ok with camaraderie as long as the others are serious players or known from previous sharing-of-the tables. I'm not enthused when the "others" are recreational type or inebriated and or buyin with $112 dollars at a $50-2K game, in the middle of the deal, and then start telling everyone how to win and how much they have won, and start pointing to invisible patterns on the tote board,...etc. 

My preference is >2<=4 other players. Most of my tables do not allow free hands and I am often the first player at the first table to open in the afternoon. If >=4-7 players, then it takes longer between hands. That coupled with a larger group of say 6-7 at table along with 3-4 back bettors and too many buy ins/change, ...etc. Which is the reason I try to avoid playing fri/sat nights. So, IMO three maybe four players are just right for me.


Third, being the only player at a table, is extremely stressful to myself as I do not desire to engage in every hand.


I agree 100%.



Continued Success,

As an addendum thought to the above post by 8OR9  on 3/8 above.

Crypto shaken as SVB exposure depegs $37 billion


Read more at:
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/markets/cryptocurrency/crypto-shaken-as-svb-exposure-depegs-37-billion-stablecoin/articleshow/98576221.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

 

My thoughts:
It will be interesting to see the effects on Cryptos after the SVB default on 3/8. Much of the fail out or (bailout) will depend on the USA Feds and if they choose to bailout the depositors. I guess we will know Monday morning.
Knowing the USA federal reserves' history (post -2008 crash) they will likely bail them out instead of letting them fall. That would likely help stabilize the markets (including cryptos), but not a good decision to always bail out poorly run/managed corporate and large mega businesses. Individuals and small businesses do not get bailed out. Just my opinion. kfb

Thx albalaha

"...We all know that a single dozen could remain sleeper for even 40 spins and could reach hit rate of even 6/60, trying that is not wise. Maybe it helps someone playing safer...."


Interesting observation/thx


Continued Success,

Hi alrelax

Good post/ session details.

re: "...After that second time, I was like, this isn't going anywhere.  I wagered bankers side but no F7 wager.  The other guy playing is back on banker and max F7 wager.  Dealer deals.  Players have an 8 and a 2.  Bankers have 2 face cards.  Players third card is a 6.  Bankers third card was a friggin 7 for the F7 win.

Why is it almost always like this?  The first hand sitting the F7 wager out and it appears.  Happens quite frequently IMO.  Not just with F7 wagers, but with increased large wagers on P or B and also ties, etc, etc.

Some type of phenomenon I guess. One of many, within an actual B&M bac shoe when you really think about it...."


    I'm of the opinion that f I'm going to wager for any of the bonus bets such as F7 or any of the more complex events I'm more likely to wager at front end of shoe vs latter. All other causal or correlated variables the same.
Yes, we can obviously see any outcome anywhere in the shoe. However, IMO the more complex an event the greatest potential is when "all" the cards or majority of cards are still available.

As with any specific event showing we must still have the cards in the correct order for said event. My logic is that even if we get the correct shuffle and cut for let's say (F7) to show early in the shoe. That same "order" of cards will reappear (cycle again) later in shoe, even allowing for the cards shifting back/forth due to 4-5-6 card hands.

However, at that latter point in the shoe when the order has reappeared if the previous numerical card values are no longer in shoe (or fewer) then the probability of seeing the F7-forming card values again is now less likely. Of course, when all the card values needed for an F7 are still available in abundance immediately after the initial F7 presented the card order may not have cycled back through again. This is when we see that 3C7 show but on the Player side. If we track certain cards for certain events such as F7 its surprising to see how often that 3c7 hand shows overall as many times the Player side is receiving the majority and many times, we don't notice if P is the recipient.

Continued Success,

Thx 8OR9, good link  https://plusevanalytics.wordpress.com/



Continued Success,

I saw this article on Breitbart news 2/23/23.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/02/23/more-criminal-charges-for-ftx-founder-Sam-bankman-fried/

Hi asym

Nice /thorough essay.

"a) baccarat productions could be not perfect randomly offered;

b) baccarat productions are affected by a kind of 'dependence' as a finite number of cards is employed to deal the game (bac rules considered)."


re: a) I agree, however, the detection early in the "non-random" presentation is often difficult. This nonrandom presentation often is fleeting or short-lived, IMO, at least for me it is difficult to discern in early stages.

re: b) The finiteness of cards and events is IMO what makes Bac a better game vs say craps or blackjack(early shuffles,..etc).



Continued Success,

Kudos to the originator of this thread: Bally6354. Thx alrelax for repost.

Many excellent thoughts/comments, and I will mention just a couple below. I "think" I read this book years ago. However, I don't recall some of the paragraphs above. A great read and several phrases worthy of further exploration.

''If there is one thing I have learned about gambling, it's to recognize and respect streaks. This is true, incidentally, in all casino games."...

...If, for example, the cards favour the player for three consecutive decisions, then your next bet should either be player or you shouldn't bet at all! If you lose, you lose only one wager. If you bet against the trend, you can be suckered into betting and betting and betting. I have seen more fortunes lost by people who became emotionally committed to one position that went against the trend than through any other folly in gaming!..."

I did this once. Once and only once. Once being the key word.  My preference if I feel a strong need to go against a pattern is to make only two attempts, and if failed attempts, then I abort the mission. I do not switch sides at that stage in the streak.

"...is to take advantage of those times when I have a winning pattern going for me. And one of the ways I do that, take advantage of the good luck, is to keep playing.
The majority of people come into a casino and when they get lucky they quit to soon. They start out with a couple of hundred dollars, win $500 and walk out with the feeling that they have scored a tremendous victory over the casino. Those same people will come back time after time and drop $50, $100, $200 each visit, and without realizing it they still aren't ahead when they do get lucky. Because they quit playing too soon. Vegas casinos are so plush and luxurious because people don't always cut their losses but they cut their winnings!..."

IMO this is the nemesis for many players, and I see it every day. Many players simply will NOT allow themselves to win at the higher levels(> .5 or >100% of buy in). Yet willingly allow the casino to repeatedly take their buyin.
Its not so much a fear of losing as it is an unwillingness to win.

Any time I hear a player say something post trip: I'm not sure how much money I made, probably close to break even, BBUUUTT we had several great meals, and free hotel, and and and ,....etc. I know with great confidence they were playing just to break even and not playing to win.

Sometimes the W simply isn't there--that is the trip that we must simply limit the losses and if one does, the big W trips will neutralize/surpass that limited loss. Many do the exact opposite--limit the upside and lose without limits(i.e., buyin +).

IMO we should view our buyin as investment risk. Exhaust it and make the casino work hard for it, but most importantly limit the losing sessions. In other words be willing to win at the >=level of risk we are willing to undertake.

I remember the words of my greeeaatt uncle Confucius:

"Grasshopper, risk is the price one pays for opportunity."



Continued Success,

https://www.casino.org/news/jackpot-caesars-palace-pays-out-over-500k-to-NFL-rookie-ronnie-rivers/