The Star System

[Tomla]

rolex watch---is this star? 1112 | 5 10 15 25 40 = 100u

[Rolex-Watch]

rolex watch---is this star? 1112 | 5 10 15 25 40 = 100u

Yes, the back-end is a Fibonacci.  5 = 1u, so the progression runs, 1-2-3-5-8 and it is not necessary to snare back to back wins, any WLW should suffice, unlike the first example which was a delayed d'Alembert.

In reality it is all nonsensical waffle, unless you are plain stupid.  Even if you are a $10 bettor, are you going to feel comfortable placing a $400 bet while being $600 in the hole?  Come on, your down $600, now you need to bet 4 blacks and your base level is what?  Errm how much did you actually buyin' for, bring to the casino, it's not like you have any edge when you push out those 4 blacks, your odds are exactly the same when you placed that $10 chip 10 minutes prior.

 God forbid if you were betting higher than the $10 level.   The experienced veterans of these gambling sites won't go anywhere near such a progression, that it-self tells you something, those posting progressions requiring hundreds if not thousands of units are just internet dream-merchants, hence the level of amusement every time this gets discussed.

[alrelax]

I occasionally visit the casinos in the Midwest without high-limit rooms.  One I do has a midi table with a $25 to $2000 or a $50 to $3000 or a $100 to $5000 limits.  The other table there is a mini with a $10 to 1000 limit usually.  The masses of players generally are buying in for $300 to $500 and playing $25 or $50 a hand unless they are up.  Yes, some players do go there with a few thousand to buy in with as back up money.  Seen many players continually do the marty/progressions until they get wiped.  Unfortunately it seems, and no I am not there every day, that they usually do get wiped as soon as the 5 to 7 hole repeaters come out.  It just seems as though (in the Midwest anyways) the players generally believe in the cut.

The point many fail to understand is the progressions can only achieve money management if (and only, IF) you can quickly get back to the right/winning side.  As Rolex said, what happens to the bulk mass of the players that have the $500 or so dollars wagering $10 or $25, 10/20/40/80/160/320/640.  Or, $25/50/10/200/400 which the latter comes only on the 5th attempt to recover. 

[Rolex-Watch]

I really don't know what your point is?

Are you lambasting those that "bet the cut", progression players or maybe both?  Because your points clearly show poor judgement on both aspects.

Firstly I need to state, MM, i.e the progression is paramount and more important than any bet selection.

You seem to have a beef with those players "Betting the cut", there is absolutely nothing wrong with 'betting the cut', certainly considering we can not predict any streak.  Statistically it makes perfect sense to "bet the cut", all tests, computer sims prove conclusively that streak length distribution (FOO) adhere to mathematically expectation.  The tales which you post frequently are rather poor examples of how to "bet the cut", and it is no surprise that you witness an abundance of failures, which further re-enforces your mistaken belief it is a bad tactic, I assure you it isn't and makes statistical sense once you know what you are doing!

Secondly the progressions you post when you lambaste these OLD and AS players that you observe are using a Martingale!!  Deary deary me, it doesn't matter what bet selection you use, the Martingale is an absolute no-no and is doomed no matter what the bet selection.

So let's set you right, before you continue spreading misinformation regarding "betting the cut".  When using OLD expect to see lots of action regarding your BR, huge swings, plenty stress.  Playing AS on the other hand, not so much action, more controlled swings.  What about those unforeseen steaks of 10, 12, 16 hands etc, that send the "bet the cut" players to the wall that you enjoy telling us about.   

Well any experienced Baccarat player who is disciplined will naturally STOP after X amount of losing bets, only the unintelligent keeps betting after losing many bets.  You never reference anybody stopping, only those playing until the monster 12 hand streak appears then they give it all back and go broke, therefore the conclusion must be, you continually witnessing rank amateurs at the tables who know no better. Discipline / control has a significant role at the tables, but that is another topic.   

Any decent player will apply the brakes, they would already be armed with knowledge, that while anything is possible, streaks ending between 4 ~ 7 or 8 will be more frequent than the sum of streaks greater than 7 or 8. Take any sample of shoes and you will this rings true every time.

Of course there are those moments (shoe) that rain streaks, possibly few streaks greater than 8 or whatever you determined your nemesis streak length is going to be, with a minority of winning bets in-between.  So quite obviously using a Martingale puts too much strain on both the player and their BR. Again all your reasoning why "betting the cut" is a bad strategy all appear to Marty bettors, are all the players you witness cousins I'm wondering? 

They need to find a progression that can withstand "losses in a row" without needing a second mortgage, until the norm "expectation" kicks in, therefore needs to be highly manipulative and as Victor once posted, one progression stand head and shoulders above all else, that is the Labby.  However you should never, ever play the Labby as it is written, you need to experiment with it.  Find the flaws then invent fix options. 

Finally, yes it is much better to ride the streaks and make a load of cash, via possible part and full parlays, only problem with that concept is, we can't predict jacksh1t and some shoes it simply just doesn't happen and one can go broke trying, which is usually determined by players resorting to betting on fantasy wishful thinking based on prior hands.

[Tomla]

Its kind of funny this thread started off with a discussion of Star progression and some variations of Star and now we are arguing about anti streak or following the streak---go figure!

[WorldBaccaratKing]

Its kind of funny this thread started off with a discussion of Star progression and some variations of Star and now we are arguing about anti streak or following the streak---go figure!

Thought that was the norm around here!

[Rolex-Watch]

Its kind of funny this thread started off with a discussion of Star progression and some variations of Star and now we are arguing about anti streak or following the streak---go figure!

Hasn't STAR been discussed 'ad nauseam' on gambling forums over the years, the same comments, the same cats, is  the cupboard really so bare?

alrelax has been knocking AS for some time now, without knowing what he is talking about, sounds like the same could be applied to many around here.

Let's discuss the "ladder and mongoose" progression systems once again aye 

[Tomla]

point well taken... there arent many new approaches to gambling or bacc

[soxfan]

Yes, the back-end is a Fibonacci.  5 = 1u, so the progression runs, 1-2-3-5-8 and it is not necessary to snare back to back wins, any WLW should suffice, unlike the first example which was a delayed d'Alembert.

In reality it is all nonsensical waffle, unless you are plain stupid.  Even if you are a $10 bettor, are you going to feel comfortable placing a $400 bet while being $600 in the hole?  Come on, your down $600, now you need to bet 4 blacks and your base level is what?  Errm how much did you actually buyin' for, bring to the casino, it's not like you have any edge when you push out those 4 blacks, your odds are exactly the same when you placed that $10 chip 10 minutes prior.

 God forbid if you were betting higher than the $10 level.   The experienced veterans of these gambling sites won't go anywhere near such a progression, that it-self tells you something, those posting progressions requiring hundreds if not thousands of units are just internet dream-merchants, hence the level of amusement every time this gets discussed.

Again, just because you lost yer balls and bottle long ago, don't assume that to be true for others. Now, tell us all how many times yer supposedly safe and superior labby style has clipped you for 200+ units, hey hey?

[Rolex-Watch]

Again, just because you lost yer balls and bottle long ago,

Prefer to think of it as wise'ing up, rather that than losing sense of intelligence, quite obvious you ain't the brightest "hey hey" bulb in the "hey hey" box, and don't actually play "hey hey hey".   

[soxfan]

Prefer to think of it as wise'ing up, rather that than losing sense of intelligence, quite obvious you ain't the brightest "hey hey" bulb in the "hey hey" box, and don't actually play "hey hey hey".   

I don't think anyone should take advice from a cat who can't even control his own emotions at the tables, hey hey.

[ezmark]

If something  is new and actually worked to beat the house edge,

 I'd most surely say that it wouldn't be available on an open forum or for sell.

Mostly because of the time and effort to create such a method,  and because If there were such a method

the game would change accordingly,  as history is our witness .

So hashing through old forum notes of failed methods is half the fun ,

much like a road trip, where the journey is the adventure.

[Rolex-Watch]

and actually worked to beat the house edge,

This will never happen, for the simple fact it is not mathematically possible.

[HunchBacShrimp]

Yes, the back-end is a Fibonacci.  5 = 1u, so the progression runs, 1-2-3-5-8 and it is not necessary to snare back to back wins, any WLW should suffice, unlike the first example which was a delayed d'Alembert.

In reality it is all nonsensical waffle, unless you are plain stupid.  Even if you are a $10 bettor, are you going to feel comfortable placing a $400 bet while being $600 in the hole?  Come on, your down $600, now you need to bet 4 blacks and your base level is what?  Errm how much did you actually buyin' for, bring to the casino, it's not like you have any edge when you push out those 4 blacks, your odds are exactly the same when you placed that $10 chip 10 minutes prior.

 God forbid if you were betting higher than the $10 level.   The experienced veterans of these gambling sites won't go anywhere near such a progression, that it-self tells you something, those posting progressions requiring hundreds if not thousands of units are just internet dream-merchants, hence the level of amusement every time this gets discussed.

Yes, considering 5 = 1u then ...|5 10 15 25 40 MAY resemble a Fibo, I say MAY because its only the last two bets of 25 and 40 that really define the similarity. It stops there though. Something you can make fun of is "..... if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck.." This 'would be' Fibo neither walks nor quacks like a duck, therefore it is no Fibo at all. Same thing goes for Tomla's posted progression. If 5=1u then 5 10 15 20 25 30 etc only displays the superficial appearance of a D'Alembert. It's execution further defines it as not a D'Alembert. It is no different than a short neg prog of 1-2-3 looking like both the beginning of a Fibo and a D'Alembert when in fact it is neither.

I appreciate you taking the time to point out your perspective. My view of it may be slightly skewed because Star is written out poorly. In the absence of $1 tables 1112|5 10 15 25 40 can only be interpreted as 1u 1u 1u 2u | 5u 10u 15u 25u 40u. Which from this more realistic and accurate view mutes the Fibo resemblance in the back end. The authors presentation of this system as something for a low roller, and his illustration of $1 bets with the "$" missing could be considered an intentional deception. And that is in part the point I was trying to make with this thread.

We are in agreement about the size of bets this system calls for and I find it frustrating that you are on the offensive against the thread, as I am on the offensive against the somewhat harmless position the author presents this system from. Another point of contention is where and how to define your betting unit. I covered this more clearly in my first post. It sure as Hades isn't the first value after the "|" in the first progression as the unit size in the final progression could easily be 4-5 times the original unit.

Now I know you know what Star is so I have no clue why you said "it is not necessary to snare back to back wins when any WLW would suffice" . The back end of Star is not a Fibo. There is no regression. The whole system is designed to reap a profit from any back to back win. A WW pattern. If you want to discuss or introduce a variant with an actual Fibo in it, by all means let's discuss it. But if it's going too be much of a bore for you to handle then don't.

Not everyone, myself included, has had your experience with successes and failures at the tables. Few people have done the research on gambling you must have done over the last 20yrs. Few people have been actively involved in online gambling forums for the last 10yrs like you have. I'm sure somebody, even if just a 'lurker' is getting some value from this tired old rehashed thread. I even bet someone has read your mention of "mongoose" and thought to themselves "..Mongoose?".

You're a man who despises casinos and system sellers equally. There are plain stupid people out there. Many of which do indeed have thousands of dollars at their disposal. I don't consider it my duty to actively protect the witless but there is nothing wrong with posting a warning sign every now and then, even if it is the same ol' sign. This thread is hardly a peddling of snake oil, your antagonistic exasperation is unwarranted.

HBS

[HunchBacShrimp]

....is  the cupboard really so bare?

No. It is not. But, it hasn't had anything new put in it in a while. There are only three things you can do with your money. Flat bet it, increase it, and decrease it. There are only just so many ways you can combine them before you exhaust all possible combinations.

The mathletes say they are all losers, and the majority of them are pretty straight forward. Only a few are interesting to those of us who don't see everything as an instant failure like mathletes do.

The Labouchere is one of them, but still condemned by mathletes. I find it very interesting you have had consistent success with its deployment for years. I am familiar with it, and familiar with several ways to protect yourself from it. It can indeed be a ticking time bomb. I'm sure my method of keeping it from getting out of hand is different from yours. But for right now, I'm interested in Star.

I have read in other threads from different forums in the past of how some have had success with it. By looking at it, from my perspective, it looks like a nightmare of a progression. And I open with a warning of sorts that it isn't nearly as harmless as the author suggests. But having no experience with its use, I'm interested in any feedback from those with experience or knowledge of its performance as I experiment with it on simulators.

HBS