+ Register

[AsymBacGuy]

Dedicated to soxfan. :-)

We want to bet toward P singles and P doubles vs P 3+s by a multilayered progression.

Betting requisites.

We'll bet a 1-2 unit progression whenever a P single or a P double had come out, in order to get at least a two P 1-2 clustered succession in any order. After winning the first (single) or second (double) event, we stop the betting waiting for another 1 or 2 P situation and going over and over. Meaning we have to wait a 3+ appearance cutting the pattern.

In a word, we'll lose anytime the shoe will present situations as 2-3 or 1-3. Anything different from that (as 1-1, 1-2, 2-1 or 2-2), will go in our favor.

The average number of 3+ streaks on P side is 4.5, so we are quite favored to get many 1-2 or 2-1 profitable patterns, moreover we won't bet a dime after a 3+ streak. That is consecutive P 3+s streaks won't harm us.

The probability to look at consecutive 1 or 2 single situations is so low that you'll need a lot of work to find them.

Multilayered progression.

Since we are not stu.pid, meaning that the very unlikely can come out anytime, we 'll set up our initial bet as 5-10 (at $10 limit is $50-$100).
Anytime we'll win we stay at the same level for two times, then we'll go down at the 4-8 level and so on, up to the 1-2 level.
Anytime we lose we'll raise our bet by 20%, so a 5-10 losing bet will followed by a 6-12 bet (at $10 limit, it's a $60-$120 bet)
Again, after a win at a given limit we stay at that level for two times globally (once more), then we go to the immediate lower limit.
And so on.

Statistical issues

Shi.t happens either isolated (more likely) or in bleeding clusters (very less likely), thus after a 3-1-3 or 3-2-3 consecutive pattern appearance I suggest you to not bet a dime until a new fictional 1-2 winning pattern had come out. Many times this means to wait the next shoe.

Notice that more likely than not, an early P 3+ streak apperance will followed by many 3+ streaks than what the opposite situation will do.
Especially whether such 3+ streak is immediately followed by another identical 3+ streak. 

Notice that if you wait some fictional losses, your win rate will be enlarged even more.

[AsymBacGuy]

Another good rule of thumb is to classify how previous 3+ P streaks had come out, if they come out by winning asymmetrical hands favoring the banker we should wait more favourable situations.

A betting variation is to stay at the same level when losing and raising the bet (by 20% or so) after a win, maybe for 4-5 times in a row.

Moreover I suggest to use this approach in a EZ bac table, where the HE is lower and for huge sums wagered we can bet the fortune 7-bet.

as.     

[Albalaha]

Things are not that simple. Simulate a randomly picked big data of baccarat outcomes to know the real picture. If you can not do so manually, get it coded. Making statements of "unbeatable" is no child's play.

[AsymBacGuy]

Things are not that simple. Simulate a randomly picked big data of baccarat outcomes to know the real picture. If you can not do so manually, get it coded. Making statements of "unbeatable" is no child's play.

Yep. 

Of course without a math edge, nothing is "unbeatable".
Still this method is far better and simpler than the myriad of miracle systems sold everywhere.   

Moreover it was tested over thousands and thousands of simulated shoes, stuff that we are not certain is going to come out on real tables.

as.

[alrelax]

The below quote is one of mine:

"The key is, like a lot wagering in bac--do not define events that have to happen and wager on them to happen in order to win, wager on what is happening and/or for the opportunities that are presenting themselves or possibly will if there are indications as to that is what might occur."

I understand the need for many to turn that statement around, but to myself--it is vastly different than a player doing 'blind guessing' and longer series of scheduled wagers that are preset, scheduled and must appear in the order that matches up to your decisions that you are convinced will be produced or perhaps (if you were honest) 'you are hopeful will appear in the same sequence you pulled from statistics', etc. 

[Mike]

"The key is, like a lot wagering in bac--do not define events that have to happen and wager on them to happen in order to win, wager on what is happening and/or for the opportunities that are presenting themselves or possibly will if there are indications as to that is what might occur."

Why is your way better?

There is no difference. Baccarat isn't quite a game of independent trials in the same way that roulette is, but for all intents and purposes it might as well be. There are no "indications" of what will happen in either game.

[alrelax]

Why is your way better?

There are no "indications" of what will happen in either game.

I do not believe I ever claimed it to work definitively or be better, as you say?  If I did, I meant it in the context of 'working' and 'better' for me.  I have tried other ways and I attempt to define and explain what works in reality, in B&M for me or does not work for me.  I do not engage in theory or simulation with my writing and results thereof, etc.

I hope that clarifies what you say, I claim is 'better'. 

But I have definitely found what identifies many of the opportunities that will present themselves in the shoes, that work well for me the majority of the times I play, (IF) I remain free of player distractions, aura, desires and other psychology effects I self-inflict, etc.   

[Albalaha]

"Mine is better"..
"Oh really? What made you think so?

"Well. I think it has to be better."

"OK. does your way work mathematically?"

"No way, House edge won't let it be."

"OK. Wanna get it simulated?"

"Hell no. I know it worked for me and it might not work for anybody else."

"Did you yourself earn good money from it?"

"Not really but I lost a bit lesser than the worst chaps in casino, so it looks better to me".

"Alright. Enjoy it."

[Mike]

I do not engage in theory or simulation with my writing and results thereof, etc.

Yes I've noticed.    I don't know why, but it's very common for gambler's to think they know better than mathematicians and to distrust or dismiss computer simulations (perhaps because "no one plays a million shoes"  ). But maybe I'm being presumptuous. What exactly is your objection to theory or simulation?

It doesn't really make sense to say that something works FOR YOU, because that implies it might not work for someone else. Suppose there are other players at your table who believe that you're the world's greatest bacc player, so they mirror all your bets perfectly. Obviously if it works for you then it must also work for them, and if you're winning they are also winning (and ditto if you're losing).

On the other hand, if it really is the case that your strategies don't work for others, but they do for you, then the only conclusion to be drawn is that your winnings are based on luck, not on the actual strategies. If something works then it works, period. Only if luck is the overriding factor does it happen that the same system/strategy played by different people or at different times results in sometimes winning, sometimes losing. The lack of consistency tells you it's just randomness at work and that the method is worthless.

[alrelax]

Yes I've noticed.    I don't know why, but it's very common for gambler's to think they know better than mathematicians and to distrust or dismiss computer simulations (perhaps because "no one plays a million shoes"  ). But maybe I'm being presumptuous. What exactly is your objection to theory or simulation?

It doesn't really make sense to say that something works FOR YOU, because that implies it might not work for someone else. Suppose there are other players at your table who believe that you're the world's greatest bacc player, so they mirror all your bets perfectly. Obviously if it works for you then it must also work for them, and if you're winning they are also winning (and ditto if you're losing).

On the other hand, if it really is the case that your strategies don't work for others, but they do for you, then the only conclusion to be drawn is that your winnings are based on luck, not on the actual strategies. If something works then it works, period. Only if luck is the overriding factor does it happen that the same system/strategy played by different people or at different times results in sometimes winning, sometimes losing. The lack of consistency tells you it's just randomness at work and that the method is worthless.

**********************************************************************************************************

Mike, with all do respect to yourself, I will copy and paste an answer I took a few minutes to just post to Xander, because he is aligned with yourself and your questioning or comments to myself about my posts.  And, there is a lack of consistencies within the way I wager on 'playing the shoe' if one analyzes what I wagered on based on what happened or appears on the score board, etc.  But I do have huge consistency in the way I gamble with tons of protocol based upon psychology, money management, thinking, emotional feeling, my ability to identify possible identifiable events and opportunities, as well as everything I have written about and explained and took great time to define--write and exploit.  It works great and is profitable to a certain point if one can apply it with all the situations, events and feelings as well as the most fallible of all--gamblers self inflicted doom from apply his desires to the unknown results that are being produced to himself that he fails to recognize.  Again, I have written about them and since you disagree and do not feel I have the proper intelligence, experience or knowledge--why read or follow or ask me questions? 

But as I said, Here is my answer to you out of respect and courtesy to your question.  Quote from me as I said:


Yes, I do and have known that.

Yes, I understand their mathematical skills and knowledge.

Yes, their statistics and their simulations/theories are probably correct for the series and the amount of shoes that they test.  I have never challenged those or said those were wrong or inaccurate, not by any means.  And if I did, it was meant in the context of what I was sitting in front of or have experienced for the evening or session, etc.

However, I have played this game since Atlantic City came about continuously.  I have learned boats loads about the reality of gambling, gambling players, the casino, psychology, the effects of winning and losing, the benefits of deciphering certain things the game brings about, the system of hosting--comps--average plays--casino comp theory--money management--benefits of a player remaining neutral--reality of bank rolls and buy-ins, the application of a players mind and what he is engaged in, etc., etc., and so on.

In other words, 'tons of stuff'.  I do not play every hand/every situation--event/every shoe the same and have no 'system or preset scheduled beliefs', with wagering schedules, etc.  IMO, if one does--you will at best (hopefully) break even eventually.  I wholeheartedly, through my experience believe that there are numerous opportunities and events that might come about and when they do--wagering for a definitive type of outcome, will have devastating results to a serious player.

It is the same exact thing in my business of hazardous materials and high risk incident management.  I have personally witnessed many very intelligent and highly educated engineers coming on scene in the field during an emergency.  Basically they know more than me in countless ways about chemical composition and the technical aspect of the spilled or released product.  But as far as cleaning up the site with the Department of Transportation or County Emergency Managers and the State Environmental Officials as well as the EPA, Railroad Environmental Departments or the Bureau of Indian Affairs,  with all the other restrictions, rules and regulations we have to and do follow, those highly educated and super-university diploma holding professors, engineers and related, are bothersome, get in the way, apply needless information and data having no value whatsoever in the field, do not meet emergency response certifications and lack extreme basic sense and protocols at the sit--so many times.  There are countless courses, certifications and much needed experience to work in the field, safely, legally and meeting regulations set forth by the state and the federal governments, that renders the type of people with great knoweldge, completely useless and even illegal in the field at an emergency site.

The same thing IMO, holds true for the casino gambling table in so many ways.  I do have non-mechanical and non preset wagering that works much higher than the majority of the times for me.  I have attempted to identify many of them within my writing here and the reason so many, such as yourself--do not agree with me and desire to challenge, twist my words around, add innuendoes and spar--is that you follow and abide by the mathematical statistics of the game of baccarat.  Period.  Not much room for discussion because  you and some others like yourself will continually challenge, without offering your 'holy-grail' that allow you to continually win and be so successful at the game.  Are you actually wealthy and very successful in the classical definition of those words at playing baccarat?  I don't know about the words and the challenges you consistently offer on the board-leaves many to believe you are.  All fine and I am happy for you if you are.  But I know, IMO and experience, for the same thing with using the results of both of those individuals you endorse and follow, will allow you to win and lose.  Again (IMO and experience) boils down to all the things I have defined, that has nothing or not much to do with the math and the statistics of game as to what will or will not happen.  There is so much more to the game of baccarat (in a live casino wagering actual money) rather than sitting at home on the computer in theory or even on-line gambling.   

So the same thing holds true, if you do not employ many or all the this I have written about, defined, suggested and exploited myself, there is no possible way you can multiple and continue winning using your conversion of mathematical statics of the game or by sprinkling magical dust on the cards in front of you, while you go through a one minute ritual of peeling and peeking at the cards themselves.  Period, pretty much the end of the story.

So, in this case and all others it is really no darn different than the old fashioned car drag strip.  The first one to the end wins.  No matter what colors, what training, what beer they drink, whom their sponsors are what energy drinks or soda pop they have decals for or if one is a country boy or an acid rocker with tattoos over his eyes and nipples.  Does not matter.  If my car beat yours, I was faster, drove better, had more skill and had a better pit crew and took advantage of other situations I found at the time, no matter what they were.  As long as I did not get disqualified for cheating or getting caught at cheating, I won fair and square and no matter the reason, I WON!  Period.  If your car beat mine, the same thing applies to you.  Period.  However, back in the pits, the same exact thing will be going one that happens at the baccarat table.  You will come over to me and say, "Yeah.....but---------", and then go on about how your lane had a bit of extra oily media & debris that gave me an advantage and only because  of that, I was able to beat you but in all actuality, you are better, faster and more experienced than myself, etc., etc., and so on and forth.  As you poke me in the chest and tell me all that gibberish and self serving rubbish, while everyone has a beer or a Corona and a lime or a paper plate of nachos-cheese and jalapenos in front of them watching and waiting for the fight to break out.  And back at the casino, you and others are there pushing money back and forth and applying mathematical statistical data and all that.  Great!  Fantastic!  I begin playing and it is like my buddy H-Money that called me.  Say I was at the shoe.  When those bankers came along for 6 Bankers right after a 9 handed chop-chop, I pounced on it--for whatever reason I convinced myself or that I saw coming.  Does not matter the reason.  Say I wagered $500.00, parlayed a couple of times.  While the rest of the table cited all kinds of 'cut' has to come out reasons.  I won 6 times lost once, they lost 5 times and won once.  It also happiness with a 20 series chop-chop event and as well with a 15 or 20 handed repeating banker or player run.

That same thing I referred to happened at the baccarat table.  H-Money my buddy called me a few weeks ago when he was continually losing money at the tables.  He tells me, "Hey Glen tell me what I should do.  The shoe started out and it was 9 time chop-chop and then 6 bankers came out and then 3 pairs of doubles and then 6 more bankers that matched exactly the first little run of bankers".  Totally impossible without being there and seeing what the numbers of the winning and losing hands were and many other things.  Even then, of course--my way of identifying events and opportunities work and do not work.  The trick that I mastered and serves me well, is within my money management, my side parlays, a bit of positive progressions, my beliefs and ability to identify certain events and as well--have the knoweldge and the willpower to 'pounce on them' while staying completely neutral and viewing as well as believing, I am using tools instead of money, etc., and everything else (once again stating) that I have written about and that works well or me.  Can I lose with my knowledge and my system of beliefs?  YES.  Can I win with them?  YES.  But when I won over $40,000.00 the other week I wrote about and posted pictures of, I lost about $15,000.00 of it one night employing what I call stupid statistical intelligence and following what I thought would be another easy and fun win.  I was dead wrong and no matter what I did, follow other players, follow myself, listen to dealers, wager on superstition or employ what I did on other shoes or the exact opposite, I would lose.  I went against everything I write about and know--in other words I admit what almost no one this board will admit, I was dead-on 100% stupid and foolish thinking I could do something that I would overrule and command with knowledge and experience.  And the irony of it was, if I did employ and use my 'systems' that I adopted and write about--I would not have lost that $15,000.00 I brought to the casino.  If you cannot or will not think and apply what will govern and assist you to win large and lose small, you will suffer and suffer with great pain at the game of baccarat.  Simple, an IMO--period.   You can debate that, I cannot and will not.

So in closing, do my systems work, yes for me. Will they work for another player, sure why not?  Are they exclusive to myself?  In some ways yes and some ways no.  Why?  Because I tailor them to my own situation, beliefs and financial position.  I truly gamble what I have set aside and I do it with the protocol that my buy-ins are tools and my tool box is strong and can absorb the loss or loan out of tools until I replace them.  I have three sets of financial envelopes.  Every week or two I build them or use them for their sources.  One is for all household expenses, another is for the kids and my family and future reserves.  The third is for gaming.  None of the envelopes or banks are ever intermingled, which i learned a while ago is dead-on wrong.  My buy-ins are a small portion of my bank roll.  My wins far out number the amounts of my losses and I also reset and refresh during a shoe as well as at the end of the shoe and most importantly, at the end of each winning and losing session.  I did not at the end of the 3rd one a few weeks ago and that is why I lost  $15,000.00 instead of $600.00 to $1,500.00 range.  I proved beyond any reasonable doubt to myself that my systems and beliefs and experiences--if intermingled in my own way, work darn good with great safe-stops and protection.

I hope this clarifies the misunderstanding you have of me and the failure you show in reading the other writings of mine.  Quite simply, two people playing a pinball machine, each with their own style, beliefs and mixture of feelings, experiences and knowledge of what might or might not happen can easily succeed numerous times or fail countless times.  What leads myself a bit above others,most times--is my ability to cut losses while or before they happen and as well, to compound and quickly build winnings far above the average player that analyzes the wrong way into the shoe before it is happening or ever will come about while he is there gambling.

But, as far as following a certain written protocol based upon mathematical statistics that a certain hand or even number of hands will produce a certain outcome in baccarat, is beyond foolish and absurd to me.  And, if that does work--by all means follow it and stay within the casino without challenging me by twisting my words and looking to spar. Then when you grow tired of winning, contribute that great knowledge you possess to the board here and others.   
************************************************************************************************************
"es I've noticed.    I don't know why, but it's very common for gambler's to think they know better than mathematicians and to distrust or dismiss computer simulations (perhaps because "no one plays a million shoes"  ). But maybe I'm being presumptuous. What exactly is your objection to theory or simulation?"

I have no objection to it.  But, IMO--it does not belong at the table for wagering decisions on a consistent and ritual basis.  We/I are actually playing those very trivial amount of shoes each session that is the smallest and tiny-est section of what made up those numbers.  And, those are the ones that contain everything but what those statistical averages total to.  Or in some cases, can be the exact representation of those statistical averages learned and published.  But in either case, if a gambler fails to employ what I have written about, detailed, explained and found to be true the highest majority of times with money management, psychology, the aura, other players, etc., etc., etc., he will only devastate and destruct himself while gambling.

To address my final concern here, I feel as though your last paragraph is demeaning and an attempt to discredit and/or humiliate.  But, I will address it the best I can.  You said: "On the other hand, if it really is the case that your strategies don't work for others, but they do for you, then the only conclusion to be drawn is that your winnings are based on luck, not on the actual strategies. If something works then it works, period. Only if luck is the overriding factor does it happen that the same system/strategy played by different people or at different times results in sometimes winning, sometimes losing. The lack of consistency tells you it's just randomness at work and that the method is worthless."  I usually say (IMO) and (Works for me), etc., because  I don't inflict my ways on others I gamble with, even H-Money and my NYC retired cop life long friend and X-'LE' partner.  I have other gambling buddies that are casino only friends and co-players, etc.  I don't preach to them or attempt to convince them, sure we might small talk and dare each other, in casino 'spirit and fun' which brings about huge amounts of god camaraderie to us--but I am not ingrained in all the ways so many gamblers and casino players are in baccarat.  Meaning, wagering for such and such, because of 'so and so'.  And to me, that is what following statistical and mathematics does to a play in baccarat because they all too often forget about everything the game actually takes to win or hold their winnings.  I only do that for certain sections and opportunities that I can identify at times when they are happening.  Period.  There are such opportunities that can be identified by an experienced player, but the problem in definition and as well in profitability of doing that--is that the identifiable event is intangible.  You will most certainly stop me short--disbelief of myself and twist my words such as Xander does and use them against me.  That is what you are doing here.  On the other hand, I combat randomness by use of everything I have written about, no need to attempt the explanation in short--definitive combat here.  I Cannon due it because it would involve too many subjects.  A lot of those are in that 'Series of 10' articles within my Blog on this board on the first page within the highlighted section. 

If you love going to the casino and do well at wagering for a continual 'cut' because of something or say wagering for a SAP/VIN count and all that, great!  Do it, I don't go and challenge you and your skill, knowledge or unique findings and positive exploits that allow yourself to win based upon whatever they might be.  But you certainly, with definitive nature and wording discount and attempt discredit of what I write about.  At least IMO and my interpretations of your statements that reflect directly and solely to myself. 

[alrelax]

I wholeheartedly apologize to AsymBacGuy for taken that space within your thread as it is kind of 'off-topic' but I answered the question that was presented to me within your thread/room.

[Jimske]

Looks good Assym.  One reason, as you point out, is the common occurrences of 1's and 2's - representing 50% of decisions.  By my way of thinking it is good to have a benchmark, a starting plan.  That way there is structure, something that can be explained.  You recognize there needs to be adjustments, fictional bets, MM, whatever.

[Lungyeh]

I tend to agree with Alrelax based on my personal gaming experience although I must profess I have the highest respect for Mathematicians (who I have been told in a recent discussion, is at the very top of the intelligence food chain even above the medical folks) and perhaps it is because I lack the IQ to understand their field and how they work.

The defining factor that make any system suitable only to an individual to a smaller or larger extent is the human emotions. Perhaps the mathematicians can formulate all human emotions but for sure even given a certain exact trend then prevailing, humans may react differently because the players at the table are different, the dealer is different, the player just quarrelled with the wife, the player just had a fantastic 50 shades of grey BDSM sex etc etc.

But like I said I don't understand enough of the power of mathematics. Because I read all the time of computerised share trading systems that make millions for the industry giants lole Goldman Sachs and the like purely on crunching data without regard to human reactions. A few differences are apparent though. These computerised share trading systems are supported by huge amounts of capital that can move the markets making it self fulfilling. It cannot happen on the baccarat tables. If the next round is meant for Banker to win, no matter how much you wager on Player, Banker will still win. Also these computerised share trading systems need lots of data and computer power to come to a recommendation which a baccarat player sitting or standing in the casino will not have the privilege of using. Even for online gaming, the time interval between each round makes it impossible to use such systems.

My 2 cents worth of opinion.

[alrelax]

Thanks, Lungyeh.  As you know we talk on the side and your opinion means a lot to me. I'm trying to fix the things on the board with Vic and I've been talking to him about some of the concerns you've expressed to me. I do have respect for the mathematicians it's just that I've expressed my opinions about the interpretation of the statistical analysis in relation to wagering and I think you would agree with it.  Even if it is correct the order of it is no better than flipping a coin it's all in the control and everything else I've detailed out at great length and took lots of time to put onto the board, if it's too complicated and too detailed so be it, everyone can gamble the way that they gamble and they're at the mercy of their soul and their emotional feelings that will blind their judgment the highest majority of the times, we've all been there.  I feel sorry for the inexperienced ones that go in and wager their hard-earned money or all their life savings on something that cannot come about the way that they've been told it will come about. Thanks again.

[Mike]

The defining factor that make any system suitable only to an individual to a smaller or larger extent is the human emotions.

Lungyeh,

If you mean staying disciplined then of course it's important and necessary, but discipline alone is not sufficient to win. Neither is money management. Your bet selection must have an edge otherwise you're just relying on variance ( = "luck").

The mathematics isn't difficult. In a negative expectation game like Baccarat you don't get paid fairly when you win, therefore in order to make up for this you must win more hands than probability dictates. However, this can't be done in an essentially random game like baccarat where you can't predict what's going to come out next with any reliability. You certainly can't get an edge by looking at patterns and what's just happened because all patterns are equally likely and past hands don't influence future hands. If follows from this this that there are no "opportunities" to be had. A genuine opportunity can only arise if the probabilities of an event change in your favor and represent "value" (meaning that the probability of a win overcomes the unfair payout).

Since baccarat is like a coin flip in might be easier to understand the principle in those terms. Suppose we agree to play a game of "flip the coin". We take it in turns to call and when I win you pay me $1, but when you win I only pay you 95 cents. Since the probability of either H or T is 0.5, you can surely see that eventually you are going to lose money, UNLESS you can find a way to win more often than 50% of the time (in order to overcome the unfair payout).

How much better than 50% does your probability of winning need to be? If the probability of winning is 50% then your expectation looks like this:

probability of winning * win amount - probability of losing * loss amount

which is 0.5*$0.95 - 0.5*$1 = -$1/40 or 2.5 cents loss per game on average.

Now suppose your probability of winning is not 0.5 but "x". Your probability of losing must therefore be "(1 - x)". With a little algebra you can work out what "x" must be in order to do better than break even.

x*$0.95 - (1 - x)*$1 > 0

$0.95*x - $1 + $1*x > 0

$1.95*x > $1

x > $1/$1.95

x > 20/39 = 0.513

So your probability of winning needs to be at least 51.3% in order to overcome the unfair payout.
Can this be achieved? Actually in coin flipping there is good evidence that the side which shows can be controlled to a certain extent by the flipping technique and the "initial conditions" (the side which is up before you flip), but for casino games it's not so easy.

Unless you can find a way to increase your winning percentage you're just gambling, in which case all I can say is : good luck!