+ Register

[alrelax]

As,

You and I are about on the same track in lots of ways, but.......as far as something that can't lose in gambling---casino gambling....I would rather say, 'might not lose'.

We are all in control of our own destiny, meaning--we lead ourselves there, wherever that may be.

Personally, I play to win and I play hard.  From mild aggressive to very aggressive.  I have extremely cut down in longer trips to Vegas and as well, the local places I cut down to a shoe or two or a few parts of a few shoes.

Your progressions would fail with me.  I would not stray from 1-3-2-6, 1-3-2-4 or even 1-2-4-8 depending on what I was doing/feeling.  You have way too many wins or other plateaus that would take self sustaining to keep going. 

[AsymBacGuy]

I understand your skepticism but look, if we can't win hoping for equilibrium or a kind of it, how can we think to win hoping for positive deviations always shifted on our side?

Yes, ideally we can if we are able to spot more likely events restricted in their variance.

So, B/P results on Zumma books cannot teach us nothing because B is more likely than P but the variance is astronomical.

Naturally the word equilibrium must be intended in a wide sense.

This progression might not lose as Alrelax correctly pointed out but still has some merits.

And its value is enhanced by finding the proper situations where it might work better, especially if we're using it after some fictional play.

Slow progression and a slow proper betting selection are the best tools, imo, to try to control the random world.

The rule is to lose, first let's focus about NOT to lose then we will think about winning.

 
as.

[AsymBacGuy]

Asym,
             You started with a wrong direction. There is no equilibrium in a game of house edge as every bet is subjected to that and in long run, all bets will go far from equilibrium in terms of "extra losses". Variance can take them even more far. Even in a game without any house edge, a bet might not get equilibrium even after a billion trials.
               D'alembert is a classic comedy of errors and based on ideas that do not work in real life. It has no mathematical basis to make it a winner.

True, but equilibrium should be intended in several ways, let's say a sort of RTM effect or something like that.

D'Alambert is the worse progression ever invented, sure.

as.   

[alrelax]

We are limited, the casino is not!  That is 99% of the problem, ours-----NOT the casinos.

Yes Banker has a slight edge, and yes a female can generally get sex anytime she wants it and males cannot.  And, as soon as you say it will be Banker, a Player comes out and repeats and repeats and repeats.  Then you say the rule of 4, 3 is easy and it will go back tot he Banker on the 4th.  After all it is 40 Players already to 22 Bankers.  Then another 7 Players came out in a row.  It happens and always will.  That pretty female was also looking for sex and 6 men turned her down, you found a female to be with in two minuets and you have never done that.  It happens.

Doesn't matter what Banker and Player does.  What does matter is the wager on a spot not what the stats are for B or P. 

When we can win (FOR WHATEVER REASON) use what makes you feel good for motivational purposes to profit and keep winning.

I have done extremely well at Fortune 7's lately with either $25 or $50 at risk.  And, the reason I have done extremely well is because I don't wager it all the time.

Stop getting hung up on the following: "if it's a player or a banker".  Forget the statistics of each and their percentage of hits, does not mean jack for your wager.  I know that is going to bring an onslaught of chastising but the period of time you are playing that shoe, it really statistically means nothing.

The problem is, people believe and wager by what is written about by well known or famous authors in relation to statistical figures. 

[AsymBacGuy]

Al, I understand your points and in your fairness nobody demonstrated a possible value of statistics applied at baccarat.

But I'm firmly convinced that besides certain considerations, what it counts is the W/L ratio and its related issues.

Are there some features helping me to occasionally guess which direction will take place some events? Imo, yes.


as. 

[alrelax]

Absolutely each of us has considerations, which IMO weigh more than the percentages of what can or cannot prevail according to 10,000 or 100,000 or 1 million shoes or in fact, past shoes, etc.

[alrelax]

Al, I understand your points and in your fairness nobody demonstrated a possible value of statistics applied at baccarat.

But I'm firmly convinced that besides certain considerations, what it counts is the W/L ratio and its related issues.

Are there some features helping me to occasionally guess which direction will take place some events? Imo, yes.


As,
What I was referring to was the statistical percentages of B or P to prevail, etc.

[AsymBacGuy]

Absolutely each of us has considerations, which IMO weigh more than the percentages of what can or cannot prevail according to 10,000 or 100,000 or 1 million shoes or in fact, past shoes, etc.

I can't wait to play with you (as well as with some others), I'm confident we might improve our strategies reciprocally.


as.

[alrelax]

Just don't let me get too side tracked looking out for the black panthers, SoS Flags, dogs and cats on skateboards, Vanilla Ice, Black Horses running through the casino, Wizards, Gnomes, etc., etc.   

[AsymBacGuy]

Just don't let me get too side tracked looking out for the black panthers, SoS Flags, dogs and cats on skateboards, Vanilla Ice, Black Horses running through the casino, Wizards, Gnomes, etc., etc.   

What about dragons? 

as.

[alrelax]

What about dragons? 

as.

Yes those too!  Actually everything that 21Aces posted pictures or videos about, I have actually seen all those in the casino last week, or was I dreaming?   

[TheLaw]

Hey AsymBacGuy,

What if you looked at how often this method would lose.......and then created a progression around that W/L record?

Example :

If you lose all 66 units let's call it 1 total bank loss. Now, the next series is the same..........trying to win the 66 units back.

Then if that is a loss, then we multiply the total bank x 2. Basically we are using a Labouchere with the total bank instead of each bet.

You would need to lose many banks (66 units each) to lose your entire stake. In this example your total stake might be 10 banks or more.

I call this a nested progression.......and you can use as many as you like to create a method.

[21 Aces]

Smart progression and bank roll.  Bank roll is a big factor, but so is laying in wisely.

Could you do it if this was on your side of the table?  Maybe not if you co crazy with it.

[AsymBacGuy]

Hey AsymBacGuy,

What if you looked at how often this method would lose.......and then created a progression around that W/L record?

Example :

If you lose all 66 units let's call it 1 total bank loss. Now, the next series is the same..........trying to win the 66 units back.

Then if that is a loss, then we multiply the total bank x 2. Basically we are using a Labouchere with the total bank instead of each bet.

You would need to lose many banks (66 units each) to lose your entire stake. In this example your total stake might be 10 banks or more.

I call this a nested progression.......and you can use as many as you like to create a method.

Yep. I called it as a multilayered plan but the concept is the same.

And your idea is appliable even before starting the original progression so further diluting the already very low risk of busting.

Even better is to form separate progression banks per any distinct event played.

At baccarat whenever certain events are cold, generally some derived and indirect opposite situations are hot or at least not cold simultaneously.
Therefore we might set up this progression working on both cold (L) and hot (W) different situations, so reducing the stress to forcely reach an equilibrium point.

Now we don't necessarily need to reach the equilibrium in a way or another PER EACH BANK (EVENT) PLAYED as we can even let it go the bank(s) performing bad, as we have gained the profit elsewhere.


as. 











 

[AsymBacGuy]

Of course the goal on the W side progression will be to get a deviation instead of an equilibrium. Hence utilizing an opposite way of thinking (positive progression).


as.