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

No matter the strategy employed, at baccarat there are two shapes of pattern presentation.

1- Clusters

2- Alternating movement

We've seen that for "cluster" we should consider any same event happening more than once. The simplest (worthless) cluster is B-B or P-P. The problem of those simple clusters is that they are coming out from a consecutive succession (ties ignored).

More interesting, at least theorically, are those patterns considered by a NOT consecutive succession.
For example how many BBB... or PPP... events (3/3+) are coming out in a row when intertwined by a given number of respectively P or B patterns.
Therefore BBB(P...)BBBB is a cluster of two, BBBB(P...)BBB(P...)BBB is a cluster of three and so on.

Since we want to restrict at most the variance impact, we should put a "limit" at those binomial "fights" between a given level of clustering and the superior one. (For example 3/3+ B clusters of two as opposed to 3/3+ B clusters greater than two).

The alternating movement acts in the same way, that is no clusters at level 1 (one alternate pattern then a cluster arrives), no clusters at level 2 (two alternate patterns then a cluster arrives) and so on.

Both different 1 (clusters) or 2 (alternating) pattern shapes will mix up in any shoe dealt by making relatively difficult to get homogeneous situations lasting for long.
On the other end, slight more likely low levels of clustering or alternating shapes in turn constitute a form of clustering and it's here that casinos will get plenty of opportunities to catch players' money as players aim is almost always directed to get univocal lines lasting for long.

More later

as. 

Selecting same spots patterns at a multiple shoes succession

Suppose we are registering A/S patterns by assigning a progressive number per every shoe played and arranging them into columns.

Here a brief example of 20 shoes:

A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-S-S-A-A-A-A-A
A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-S-A-A-S-A-S-S
A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A
A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A
S-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-S-A-S-A-A-S-A-A
A-S-A-A-A-A-S-S-S-S
S-A-A-A-S-S-A-A-S-S-A-S-A-A-A
A-S-S-A-S-S-A-A-A-S-A
S-S-A-A-A-S-A-S-S-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A
A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-S
A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-S-A-A
A-S-A-S-A-S-A-A-S-A
A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-S-A-A-S-S-A-A-A
A-S-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-S-S
A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A
S-A-A-S-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-S-A-A
A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-S-A-A-A-A
A-S-A-S-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A
A-S-A-A-A-A-S-A-S-S-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A
S-S-A-S-A-A-A-S-A-S-S-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-S

A= 233 and S=87 (x3=261)

Despite of being voluntarily taken by a kind of S innatural predominance (A:S gap=-28), we see that the above guidelines still stand even by a vertical registration.

For example column #1 (first pattern of every shoe) provides a A-A-A-A-S-A-S-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-S succession.

Column #2 a less appealing sequence as A-A-A-A-A-S-A-S-S-A-S-S-A-S-A-A-A-S-S-S

Column #3 A-S-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A

Column #4 A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-S-A-S-A

Column #5 S-A-A-S-A-A-S-S-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A

And so on...

This simplified scheme (again...voluntarily taken from a moderate/strong negative standpoint) should get us some hints about approximating at best our action when we want to consider same spots at back-to-back shoes. Especially by assessing that bighornsh.i.t could happen for quite long (see the column #3 providing a cumulative -16 units loss before vig if we'd bet every pattern).
On the other end, A streaks longer than 3 must happen and of course they should be "chased" by selectively wagering and waiting that A patterns reach the 3 consecutive value (AAA).

Finally pretend to embody each column as a distinct player's destiny. There are no many columns getting "easy" A/S positive final returns, whereas more than one column experienced harsh times to endure.

Fortunately things will work way better than this example as in the real world the A/S ratio will be very close to the 3:1 expected ratio.
But being prepared to face negative variance is one of the best recipe to try to get the best of the game.

as.

And when I wrote, "The long-run strategy is mathematically doomed, while the short-run strategy at least gives you a fighting chance."  I tried to express my love and success with a hard pos-progression hit and run, short session positive experience.  Rather than playing a grinding shoe after shoe and attempting to feed into what the casino desires bac players to do.

If I understand what you are asking, that is, how to make and hold profit with a progression that is winning?

I would apply the 1/3rd, 1/3rd, 1/3rd I have written about and explained in detail many times.  I would also use a 2 step full parlay progression max and then just pull down the winnings and eventually apply that 1/3rd to. 

Good post/ I will quickly respond with some quick thoughts. Then respond/elaborate more at a later date.

For the most part many of the general statements above would be considered mostly accurate for the average(i.e., most typical) gambler. Meaning the gamer that wagers nearly all hands dealt, balls spun, dice tossed, every day, and continuously to perpetuity. This average gamer is the type that does not record data, doesn't study or try to improve ones skills, ...etc/ 20-30 years later is still at the skill level as year one. For this type of gamer I say most of the above assertions about ruin, h.e., ...etc are mostly accurate.

re: H.E. I agree with the above about how small H.E. add up. The same is true when the player has an edge. Even when a player does not always have a H.E. the player can still go on significantly long and massive winning streaks. Meaning prior to seeing the casinos' written-in edge start to show as (+) for them.

It is my opinion the player has many options and tools the casino does not possess. One main advantage for the player is the fact the casino must offer the game 24-7.

The player can play(or not play) as much or little as one desires.

The player can play very few (or many) hands.
Players can select only the hands more favorable to the player.
Players select how much to wager in each spot and the casinos' only option is to match it.
A player should think of the casino as a robot that's only allowed to match our move--this alone gives us many favorable options. If it wasn't for low table max bets a larger-funded player could bust the casino(especially if one knew how much liquid assets the casino could access quickly).


IMO one of the main advantages the casino has is the option to select(limit) the table max bet. If it wasn't for the casino limiting this(Tmax) I perceive we would see many of the poorly managed casinos go bust. Just like the players do that exhibit poor money management skills.

More later /have a good week.kfb

20 College Basketball Players Indicted in Federal Point-Shaving Case

Who could have seen this coming? Stay tuned to this story as more indictments are in the pipeline.

Key points to story: "...  U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Thursday announced the indictments of 20 recent men's college basketball players from 17 schools for allegedly attempting to fix games via performance manipulation in the 2023–24 and '24–25 seasons. Officials say 39 players from 17 teams attempted to fix 29 games. The feds also filed charges against six other people associated with the scheme, including former NBA player and college standout Antonio Blakeney and individuals who worked as personal trainers or AAU coaches. ..."

20 College Basketball Players Indicted in Federal Point-Shaving Case

https://www.si.com/college-basketball/20-college-basketball-players-indicted-in-federal-point-shaving-case

hello.
any string of 10 results has the same probability of showing as 10 reds.
so if you play against it repeating is the same as betting 20 reds will not show.
the question is what money management and progression.
we play the progression.

Cheers

Now the indictments come.

From the comments section, to the point, factual and never ending:  "If money is involved people will always figure out a way to cheat."

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v__1GlOXsNs

Any symmetrical (S) pattern needs two hands in a row to be equally distributed as the previous pattern.
If cards are really randomly distributed, it's a simple task to ascertain how many clustered S patterns will show up as isolated or (more unlikely) as clustered.

No one serious bac player can miss the profitable spots a real random distribution (random.org, for example) will provide up to the point that a multilayered betting plan will be able to destroy every possible distribution in the world.
This fact counterfeits the idea that every hand is totally independent from the previous ones, thus if our plan is based upon S isolated events, we'll be in very good shape to get more wins than losses, especially if we wait for some fictional losses to happen.

Actually let the house to hope that S clustered events will happen for long but they can't as whatever the cards are arranged a kind of asymmetry will take the lead over the counterpart.

Since just one hand will break a more likely asymmetrical distribution (so producing a less likely S pattern), we need to restrict our field of intervention so waiting for a S pattern to stop independently of its consecutiveness.

Therefore once a S-S pattern shows up at the shoe we're playing at and knowing that more often than not long successions of S isolated events are more probable to come out, we might infer that S clustered patterns will be slight more likely followed by another S cluster. Especially when shoes are unrandomly distributed (machine shufflers, for example).

On the other end, S clusters will slight make more probable A clusters so in the end the only successions we should fear are A-SS...-A-SS... sequences.
And such situations aren't going to come out so often and whenever they'll show up they'll constitute an astounding trigger to get our future bets affected by a huge EV+.

Suppose we have four distinct a-b-c-d fictional players betting for us:

a) player will bet toward A-A just one time;

b) player will bet toward A one time after any single S;

c) player will bet toward A-A after any S clustered event;

d) player will bet to get a A-A-A (or longer) situation.

Our long term data told us that in the vast majority of the times isolated A (so negating an A-A sequence) aren't coming out by a level suprassing the 3-level.
Therefore way more often than not negating a fourth A isolated appearance.

Isolated S patterns are affected by a very low volatility, meaning that isolated S events are more likely to show up clustered than followed by a S cluster.

Once a S clustered event happens (S-S or S-S-S and so on) it'll be slight more likely to face an A cluster.

Clusters of A getting the exact two value (S-A-A-S) aren't going to get many back to back sequences without getting a more natural superior A succession.

Overall we won't face many situations getting ALL four players to lose for long.
Actually it's very likely that at least one or two (or more) players will get the fair amount of positive situations they're entitled to get.
It's just a matter of time and actula deviations, way better to be resolved by a strong diluted bet selection.

as.