As Kungfubac wrote in another post, I will quote:

"Tried-and-True Money Casino Gambling Management Techniques

I agree with most of the authors' suggestions.
re: Stop Loss and Stop Win.

Stop Loss:
Personally, I do not rebuy into the same shoe after busting a buyin. I do go get another buyin but will select a different shoe, go to different casino, maybe take a restroom break/walk around 15-20mins,...etc.

What is interesting is when I bust a buyin it seems I will bust another within a few shoes or days and often that second bust in close proximity will have a Net-(i.e., meaning it had not earned itself once).

Recently I had gone about 9 weeks without busting my buyin(very long for me). It busted and a short time later( a couple days later) it busted again with only a 19% win of itself. Most busts that are Net- I seem to at least have profits of 60%--80% prior to bust.

Stop Win: Personally I do not think we should have a Stop Win. Simply implement a trailing loss (similar to investing in a stock or precious metals,..etc). One never knows how long the current winning trend will last(shoes, days, weeks, months,..etc)."

https://www.888casino.com/blog/gambling-management-tchniques

VERY IMPORTANT SUBJECT TO ME AND I BELIEVE OTHERS.  I SPENT THE TIME TO OUTLINE AND CONDENSE MY LONG DRAWN OUT THOUGHTS INTO THE FOLLOWING:

Stop Loss. It is an easy definitive stopping event for myself. If I lose my buy-in, I am done for the session. Not to restart after a break, not to go get additional funds or restart once again. I know my limits and I know my risk limits. If I lost, I lost. My reasoning is, if I lost the buy-in, I would be stuck in a recovery mode to recoup the lost funds and for myself, that only favors the casino 95 times or so out of 100. I've learned this from the past four (4) decades of play I have participated in.

Stop Win. Lots of opinions written on lots of forums and broadcast on countless videos on the Internet. Believe what you want, but I know one thing for certain, most wins are shown or written about and losses are not.

I have a few different items I use to determine how much of a win I should walk with. I am pretty strict with my ultimate decision when a session turns winning and when to enter my 'Stop Win' event mode.

If I wound up into a winning session which I determine by at least doubling my buy-in risk capital, at that point I generally enter my 1/3rd-1/3rd-1/3rd status of play. I have talked about this extensively on the forum here. It is a critical part of my M.M.M.  (I and numerous others within my circle of player friends have become better players because of this alone).

My buy-in capital will be removed and locked up as well as either 1/3rd or 2/3rds of my 1/3rd-1/3rd-1/3rd division of winning funds. I will continue my play with at least 1/3 rd of those, or perhaps 2/3rds. This will depend on several factors of how easy or difficult it was to get to that point, which I'm not going to discuss here because those are specific to each session.

If I continue to win wagers while staying within 1/3rd to 1/2 of the win as my wagering capital, I will then enter 'set-asides', which I value and respect  differently than the 1/3rd-1/3rd-1/3rds.  Bottom line is, my protocols on a stop win will be dependent upon how much and how quick I continue winning, and/or the opposite.

So, am I just going to hit my trigger, which is doubling my buy-in and then employing a stop win?  No, of course not! However, I found a very comfortable, satisfying and proven implementation of strategies that allow me to continue playing/winning or walk away and end the session with complete satisfaction that I did the best I could have done and not have that feeling or desire to walk back after I cashed out.

Those are my Stop Win and Stop Loss thoughts and rules. 

Suppose our random walk will dictate to bet that a S pattern will come out as isolated (so followed by an A pattern) and we choose to consider just the very first S pattern occurring per every shoe dealt.

Itlr not only we can't lose any money at such series of bets but actually we can improve our EV by waiting that a first S pattern went as clustered (S-S...), then wagering at the next shoe toward the first S coming out as isolated.
If you'd think that most of the times the common derived roads are mutually exclusive in producing S patterns, you'll see that "S isolated random walks" are getting a good level of prediction capable to erase and invert at our favor the HE.

This very first pattern betting placement is the only one enticing a kind of constant wagering being less affected by possible strong variance issues and the reasons why this should be true are beyond the scope of these writings.

Then the next patterns are more sensitive to the actual shoe distribution, mainly being a by product of the first pattern propensity.
Those are patterns we want to classify by a kind of RTM factor, so orienting us to wait for fictional losses to show up before wagering.
Moreover some shoes will deny a second S pattern, making the second S pattern trigger a more difficult spot to take care of.

Same thought could be applied at very first A isolated patterns vs A clustered patterns (privileging the clustering effect) anyway being affected by a slight greater volatility we do not want by any means.
So it seems we'll be in better shape by wagering that something less due will come out as isolated than confiding that a more likely probability will get its fair share of results because more probable events will more likely come out in the form of long clusters than by a constant clustered form.

Here a brief sample of Big Road (first row) and ByB Road (second row) first patterns in the form of S isolated and S clustered patterns after an initial S patterns occurred:

S-A
S-A

S-S
S-S

S-A
S-A

S-A
S-S

S-A
S-A

S-A
S-A

S-S
S-A

S-A
S-A

S-A
S-A

S-A
S-S

S-A
S-A

S-A
S-A

S-A
S-S

S-A
S-A

S-A
S-A

S-S
S-S

S-A
S-A

S-A
S-A

S-S
S-A

Whenever those patterns dictate to bet an opposite hand in order to get an A pattern, do not bet and wait for the next shoe (I'm talking about the very first S pattern).

Let's casinos hope that card distributions will make many first S patterns being clustered at each random walk we decide to consider (we can easily set up an infinite number of random walks  besides the common derived roads), in the meanwhile we to take the profits by exploiting a purest form of gambler's fallacy (LOL).

as.

Big article in today's WSJ about PolyMarket which is one of the big Prediction Market players.

AD

Thanks for your detailed and interesting replies.

Maybe the common denominator is patience/discipline and efforts made to reduce volatility,  things that converge by playing very few hands.

The only way, IMO, to reduce volatility is by considering opposed selected events roaming the most around the 0 point.
Mathematically this kind of reasoning is a pure fallacy as everything happens anywhere and anyhow and odds just follow the math probabilities (all bets are EV-).

But in reality some situations are more likely to get restricted variance values than others, so the points of intervention matter.
Then any shoe is a world apart, many times not fitting the long term values we are expecting so we shouldn't chase the unchasable especially within a single shoe or a couple of shoes.
In fact and after extensive studies made upon different SINGLE shoe productions we've got the conclusion that baccarat predominantly is a game of clusters but (from a strict EV+ point of view) it's almost impossible to realize which events will take the clustering or silent line. And of course the lenght of such clusters that most of the time we take care of only when they are strongly negative.

Back to the A/B events roaming around the 0 point.
That is not a cut and dried recipe for long term success, but it's a good starting point to base our strategy.

Basically the hands we'll win are balanced by an almost same number of losing hands, so we have to discard from our betting more losing hands than we can, especially if losing hands seem to be clustered.
The opposite situation (apparent clusters of winning hands) is more intricate to be assessed as we don't know how many bets we'll win consecutively, a thing particularly important when our plan is devised by two-bets ranges.

More later

as.

Me personally skip the first hand of the shoes because i use multiple virtual player, and my asym/sym is based on W/L of every virtual player, and it work like that WWWW/LLLL and WLWL/LWLW are the sym, all other combinations are the asymmetrical, so I use 4 hand "pattern", skipping first hand (because some player had different strategies so to start all together I start from the second hand ( first is registered anyways because is important for some virtual player)

Thing that asym/sym is different from yours or can be good?

Then after you talk about the other road I'd like to think and work on a random walk+random road and registered all together (in my spreadsheet) every 4 hand / segment a new shoes / new road/ different road of same shoes.

and I have different spreadsheet based on trigger of asym/sym like

bet after a SS or after A
after SS or AA
After S
or double AA in block of 2 so

example
A
( now bet for A )
close block of 2 start a new block etc..

what do you think?

stats are good but I'm not sure if all this work is effectively good to reduce volatility and result or is just a fallacy.

I think Ms James has far bigger concerns at the moment. She is still facing additional charges for real estate loan fraud, et al charges coming down the pipeline, allegedly.


https://www.casino.org/news/new-york-ag-james-warns-consumers-on-prediction-markets/

Link below.

I seldom ever go the theatre. However, I might watch this(or at least catch it on netflix). Stallone typically produces A+ movies so that alone will make it a good bet.

I went to see "Melania" recently. A fantastic movie. I had forgotten that theatres offer a nice experience. It had prob been at least a decade or more since I had actually gone to a movie(at a theatre)


https://cdcgaming.com/brief/stallone-to-produce-tv-series-about-benny-binion-birth-of-modern-las-vegas/

Good thoughts VLS. "it's worth remembering how much small wins can compound over time, too..."

A tiny compounding increment can really get the snow ball rolling downhill. One can find alot of good intel on compounding by studying Euler(or just thoroughly examine ones properties' amortization schedule).

In my opinion one should utilize some form of compounding in every thing we do at the tables. I compound every winning wager(sometimes not very much). We never know if our winning streak will occur (X current wager placement/immediate W streak , X shoe section, x shoe, X the day, or x the week, month,...etc).


Thx VLS as I  always value your thoughts(especially on MM and bet sizing). I wish you had more time to comment more often as you have a lot of expertise. I've read alot on your roulette site.



May the wind be at your back throughout the new year,kfb

Thx Asym/appreciate u taking the time to elaborate.

I've enjoyed the discussion with Whatswhats. I like your examples  on the 3/3+  with your Asym/Sym context. I know several players that look at your 3/3+(though with a slight twist). I will comment more on the 3/3+ as I think its an important topic.

    I like that and also find other specific placements EV+(Especially when we can find >=2 EV+ bet placements meeting at the same junction at the same time. that's where Im more likely to deploy my higher-pressed wagers.


"...This finding (there are quite more of them) emphasizes the importance of studying shoes coming out from the same source and that around the globe there are very acute players trying to get a kind of an edge whatever intended as the person we've met during our sessions..."

    I try to profile each casino I play. One may be surprised as it seems casinos have slightly different shuffling procedures. Even casinos within the same chain. I do not know why sometimes but the data doesn't lie. Maybe its just Variance-of-shoe-shufle. One of my casinos has been generating the same profile for almost 8 years. Even if I never figure out WHY(I can still take advantage of this profile).


"...It's way more interesting to assess that this finding promotes an unsound math plan as all bets are placed at P side..."

    Good point. It is my opinion that although P vs B will approach 50% it is the dispersion of results that create this placement on P(that u suggest above). It seems P has a slightly differently personality (vs B) in how it disperses (primarily around the 1iar and 2iar).

   

"...Shoes are coming out from the same shuffling machine brand, even if working at different casinos (!).

That's not the only finding promoting a kind of univocal betting placement, just one of the easiest.

Unfortunately (and probably this is a possible added value of it) a nearly half of the shoes dealt are unplayable at least for this specific attack. Then only one bet is suggested per every playable shoe..."

    I concur/ feel it would be good training for a player to set in fromt of two consecutive shoes taking notes for bet placement(Yet not make a single wager). Patience/ Discipline coupled with MM is the ticket my friends.


Continued Success,