+ Register

[alrelax]

The shoe with 49 hands that was posted (missing the last 30 maybe? or ties and missing some?) anyway, I love a 20 to a 7 case sernario in the first 27 hands, wow.  And like I said in other posts, players are strong in the beginning much higher than 50% of the time.

[Johno-Egalite]

The shoe with 49 hands that was posted (missing the last 30 maybe? or ties and missing some?) anyway, I love a 20 to a 7 case sernario in the first 27 hands, wow.  And like I said in other posts, players are strong in the beginning much higher than 50% of the time.

Thanks for pointing out the number of hands.   I missed a P on the second streak, it actually went to 5 x P. (just noticed you can no longer edit or delete posts after a time period!!) 
I don't record Ties as I don't play them.  All shoes are now 70 hands or under, due to paranoid casino worried about potential card counting with the "Super Egalite", ever since Eliot Jacobson posted how to.  Now a deck is cut from the back, plus they burn cards, which they never did previously, as for this shoe, I exited it early.

I have found numerous events that happen with great repeatitvness, not that they are guaranteed by any 100% means, but they happen when I play more than 6 times easily out of 10. 

The more events you lists, the more likely you are going to notice something that fits the narrative. Couldn't you isolate just one rare event?  That is just like me saying, after some monster 10+ hand streak, the shoe will now get very choppy, invariably that is usually the case, but I woldn't bank nor play for it.  People see what they want to see, so their beliefs get affirmed.   If you were certain of any one single event, you would wait for it's appearance then hammer it, but we know, you are still placing a 50/50 bet, so we don't.

I'm waiting for ASYM to comment, because I'm not even certain I virtually played the shoe posted corrected, I recall reading something about rare-event, so maybe he'd care to explain.


   

[AsymBacGuy]

No, no, no no and no. :-)
Of course it's my fault.

In the shoe you posted Lugi (thanks for your interest) and not taking into account additional important shoe per shoe long term statistical situations, I would have won every hand with my #2 plan.

First BB is followed by BBB (W)

Second BB is followed by B (W)

Third BB is followed by BBBB (W)

This is just a "normal" deviation as a fictional player betting after any B double against another B double is W=3 and L=0

Notice that a second fictional player betting against a BB, BB sequence hadn't the opportunity to bet and the same is true for a fictional player betting against a third BB, BB, BB sequence.

After the cutoff point of BB, BB, BB my plan is over, I'm not chasing or hoping to get situations coming out very unlikely. (Strings of 5, 6 or more B doubles could come out sooner or later.

The important thing is that you consider separately those three fictional players with their W and L situations.
Actually and according to my shoe per shoe findings, I play toward clustered winning situations or after a single losing situation.

Plan #1

To take advantage of the very likely situation to get at least one cluster of P 1s and 2s per any single shoe, you have to wait the first condition to appear. That is an apperance of a P single or P double.
In your shoe, first trigger is single P followed by PPPPPPP (a loss), then the second trigger (another P single) is followed by PP (a win). after that we cauldn't care less of what happens next on the same P1-2 streak.

Do you remember what I've stated about the early P 3+ streaks?
More often than not, they are producing a shoe more rich of such streaks than the average expected ratio (4.5 per shoe). Obviously. It's more likely to get strong deviations after an early strong deviation had come out than the opposite situation (there are intricate card distribution issues that confirm this I do not want to talk about).
Since for our #1 plan P 3+ streaks are very bad, I'm less inclined to put in action this plan even if it would have won  after the first L.
Alrelax seemed to agree with that even by considering other aspects.

Notice that with my plans (there are at least a dozen of them) it's far more likely to get a starting W (not here for #1 plan), a WW situation (plan #2), a LW situation (plan #1) as opposed respectively to a starting L, a WL situation and a LL situation.

In addition you see that with my W, WW or LW plan I'm trying to get the best of it not compelling to or forcing the normal expected ratio being W=3 and L=1.
That's because I want to extract a very long winning plan reducing at most the inevitable impact of sequences as WWWWWWWWWWWW or LLLL or LL-LLL-LL that will come out along the way.

Per every starting L, WL or LL events, you expect to get a triple favourable amount of starting W, WW or LW situations. Actually it's even larger than that if the plan dictates to bet banker.
Only the vig reduces the economical return, thus we have to select at most our betting opportunities by a multilayered progression.

@BA.

I know your interesting point, but I think that a 1:32 plan is much more difficult to manage. Maybe I'm wrong.

as.


























   

[Blue_Angel]

@ Luigi,


You might have seen streaks of 5 and 6 in a row back to back, BUT how frequently??
I guess are not so ordinary...!




@ ABG,


Perhaps eventually you'd realized that your "unbeatable plan" is almost the "DBL" or "penultimate bet" or "avant dernier", no matter how you call it, it's the same thing.
It simply wins when there are chops or 3+ streaks and loses by 2s/doubles, so WHY you think yours is better than that??
My intention is NOT to discourage you, BUT I might be missing something which makes your strategy better than "DBL", thus a genuine interest for your subject.

[Johno-Egalite]

@ Luigi,

You might have seen streaks of 5 and 6 in a row back to back, BUT how frequently??
I guess are not so ordinary...!

Not very frequent, however the point I was making is, how many losing bets would it cost you, if it happened once?  You could end up chasing for quiet some time thereafter.

@as  I found your reply confusing I will re-read it a few times before responding.   

(there are intricate card distribution issues that confirm this I do not want to talk about).

Are you referring to the 'not so secret', "when high cards leave the shoe it favours the Player side and when low cards leave the deck it favours the Banker side?

[AsymBacGuy]

It's very hard to explain strategies coming from years and years of study and play and positive testing.
Frankly if my methods seem to be a bad or a good copy of a worthless strategy invented in the XIX century, I'm totally discouraged.

So I won't go any further.

Lugi: I was referring to the asymmetrical/symmetrical hands distribution with its deviations, an additional tool that IMO helps a lot.

Cheers

as.

[alrelax]

ASYM:

You said; "I was referring to the asymmetrical/symmetrical hands distribution with its deviations, an additional tool that IMO helps a lot."

Which is absolutely spot-on in baccarat as well as many aspects of even scientific method and published protocols of countless things.  Not just gambling.  That is where, IMO and only IMO, so many go wrong!

In my hazardous materials spill release remediation business, the state as well as the EPA has published rules and regulations as well as protocols, but the problem to the definitive mind is the addition of the four words always added, "May or May Not".  However, there is something called, "Lack of Receptors" which have variables and unknowns for 'Consideration" as well as "Exposure and Pathways".  One has to 'risk analysis the end points' taking into consideration the 'point source' and what spill released as well as the exposure, etc.  There is no science to the science that has to be applied and valued.  6 different people doing this, might get 6 different answers and outcomes and then maybe again, all 6 might very well agree, doubtful--but possible.

I could be on a job and a state official pulls up and tells me I have to do 'such and such' because  of his opinion of 'receptors' and you could be on the exact same job across the other side of the highway and be told an entirely opposite thing involving the same exact released product, terrain and pathways present.  Does it mean the decision I received was wrong or your was? 

No different in baccarat. "The consideration of termination or continuance would have to be justified by the likelihood of the outcome".  And such as with environmental matters, although there is science involved to the max, statistic's are not used in the absolute valuation of specific matters unless it involves a definitive set of conditions that would be rock-solid and no variance or deviations were able to occur.

Go figure.

[Blue_Angel]

It's very hard to explain strategies coming from years and years of study and play and positive testing.
Frankly if my methods seem to be a bad or a good copy of a worthless strategy invented in the XIX century, I'm totally discouraged.

So I won't go any further.

Lugi: I was referring to the asymmetrical/symmetrical hands distribution with its deviations, an additional tool that IMO helps a lot.

Cheers

as.

You have failed to address my question;
Am I missing something??

[Blue_Angel]

Not very frequent, however the point I was making is, how many losing bets would it cost you, if it happened once?  You could end up chasing for quiet some time thereafter.

@as  I found your reply confusing I will re-read it a few times before responding.   

Are you referring to the 'not so secret', "when high cards leave the shoe it favours the Player side and when low cards leave the deck it favours the Banker side?

You simply focus only on 1 side...I'm going to give an analogy in order to make my point clearer, you (anyone) could buy lottery tickets for the entire duration of your lifetime and NEVER to become millionaire.
However, every time you are buying those lottery tickets you are entitled to a tiny chance of becoming a millionaire, while on the other hand, you are spending slowly but steadily a tiny amount per time.
The clever investor doesn't have the "lottery" mentality, he/she has the prudent and consistent objective in mind...in other words, if you cannot repeat the same results up to a certain degree, then what you are doing is simply luck and luck cannot be controlled, when you are lucky you win, when not you lose and this is all there is, just plain luck, not success, nor achievements.
To prove that your strategy can win with or without luck then there must be CONSISTENCY, something you could repeat again and again, anytime you want, the profit could vary from time to time, but there MUST be always profit.


So buy your "lottery tickets" just because they are costing less, who knows, you could become a millionaire!

[alrelax]

Basically we went from this;

Which then conveniently morphs into;

Mind boggling, a classic example of obfuscation.

I tend not to engage people at the casino, as you don't know what you are walking into.    People that have responsible careers, but when it comes to gambling!!   I've had the pain of enduring all kinds of weird sh*t.    Casino can change the order of the cards in the shoe, nobody knows what the angel machine is capable of with the eye in the sky.   "I'm the best player there is, but short of cash at this minute".   

Giving up your time, sanity and personal space to listen to some brain malfunction fuzzy logic, then when you explain, what it is they are telling you makes little sense.   The defend by reminding you, how they once won 95% of their bets placed in a shoe once.  Which in hindsight simply reinforced the delusional way of thinking, if it ever happened at all.  I shudder, even angry when people spin such baloney in my direction, who has time, or wants to hear that?   When you start to straighten the creased wires, expose the disillusionment, more is simply thrown on top. 

One wonders how on earth do such folk function on a daily basis?  Of course some don't, if you exclude hanging out of gambling joints.   Then you figure, it's simply not worth the effort thinking about, a no win situation, no need to understand, I've unfortunately already encountered it all in the real world.  The cognitive dissonance of the OP is breathtaking.

Have a good day Gentlemen

*****Moderator's Warning*****

One time warning.  Period.

DO NOT, I repeat--DO NOT insult other members here.  This is not allowed and I will not tolerate it any longer.

Check your negativity, humiliating desires, drama arguments and bad attitude at the door when you enter.

If 'ASYM' came on your thread--that is one thing to a certain point, citing disagreement or stating his experiences and thoughts--but still leaving out the negativity in a bad way, the humiliating desires, drama arguments and general bad attitude.

You came on 'ASYM's' thread and IMO he is a valuable and well respected member.  Regardless, does not matter if you came on another members thread with the member having only 10 posts and if you said the same thing in the same demeanor and humiliating style you did, I would answer the same way with the same warning. 

Do not bring on bashing, chastising, humiliation to a member or belittling in any way. 

If you don't like a member, enjoy reading his material, thoughts, finds, experience, whatever it is he is writing about, SKIP IT.  (BTW-all you have to do is block the member and you will not even see his material).

Personally, I say and add--if you really feel the way you do--stop wasting your time here and join another website/forum where there are mostly all multi million dollar winning professional baccarat players living the luxurious easy life, all you have to do is pay $52.00 or $60.00 month and magically you will be among a super elite group of members that not only earn millions of dollars (at the admission of the website owner) they really do bash most other message boards and their members. 

You directed your disrespect not only at the OP's posting but also personally at the OP.  Both at least once if not more in a generic choice words you attempted to use.  This is the reasoning for my warning.  As well, it applies to you and every one. 

Again, this is your First and Last warning, I emphasize that. [/u]

[Baelog]

Waiting for part#3.

[AsymBacGuy]

Thanks Al!

And, LOL, maybe someone should test his/her MMS before posting on this site.

as.

[Baelog]

Hi ,

Played around a little with Baccarat unbeatable plan #1 and #2 as presented here just for fun. Played over 21 LIVE shoes only using the player side. First graph is no stop just playing as it falls. Second one I was waiting for a virtual win after a loss in my + + + + - - + + - + + + pattern. Same 21 shoes.
[attachimg=1]
[attachimg=2]

Baelog

[alrelax]

And that is why I defined, detailed, and explained how my, 'Resetting & Refreshing' can and will help the serious player with his 'wins' as well as his 'losses'. Actual tangible help with governed encouragement or stopping points.

[AsymBacGuy]

Baelog, despite the worthless sample, the trick is to try to reduce huge fluctations in either way.

as.