Quote from: gr8player on September 01, 2014, 02:33:41 PM
I heard that same refrain every other day at the Wiz's site, and finally decided it best to simply cease the argument by withdrawing my membership there.  In two words:  their loss.

I have no numbers nor statistics that'll satisfy you, Albalaha.  Sorry. 

I have only numbers and statistics that satisfy ME.  So be it.

The probm is the great one forgets what he posts, back then he states he has no stats, today he states they are proven.

Also a convenience of truth of what really transpired at the WoV

Quote from: soxfan on October 14, 2015, 10:37:14 PM
There was once a system called Very Near the Infallible Roulettes method that was very good. It involved anti-streak play using the multiple banks, hey hey.

Was going to mention that, worth reading for the principals of the MM alone, the roots of my own "string MM" method.   

Quote from: XXVV on October 05, 2015, 05:00:19 AM
No one is interested. There are hardly any readers.

Speak for yourself, I read them wondering what motivates somebody to post so much without revealing anything, other than "ooh look at me".  Also there are more, a lot more Roulette boards in the cyber-world which are frequented a lot more than this, this board really has a small roulette audience compared to them so again I wonder why....

The highlighting and directing to those 'M4' sites is contentious...   

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on September 27, 2015, 10:30:49 PM
Now, it's mathematically undisputable that whenever an AS hand will take place Banker side will get an average 15.7% edge over the Player.

Ask the WOO site, Jacobsen or any gambling mathematical expert if you don't believe that.

I'm not a fan of either of those sites, so why would I make an as$ of myself asking a third hand question.  So why don't you explain seeing you believe it.

After you have done so, I fail to see how such thoughts could possibly provide any advantage, because nobody can act after cards are drawn, which makes the entire belief deluded, yet I'm open to be convinced otherwise.

Please be my guest explaining where this 15.7 15.86% (I'm sure that makes a difference) comes from.  Then explain how it helps the player before the cards are drawn.


Edited to add, I see you have posted percentage figures above, without really explaining where they have come from.  If what you said had any truth, one would naturally expect the ratio of P's v's B's to be greater over large series of trials than say what is shown in the Zumma books. 

When I state Birthday Paradox Pairs has a 90% chance of winning, I didn't just take Bayer's word for it.  I actually produced an excel spreadsheet and worked out every possible 8-hand combination, ditto Equilibrium bet options. 

Having glanced your post again, this is all based on "after the event, not prior to", and I fail see how it can be of any benefit whatsoever, because everybody already is aware the Bank side carries a slight advantage, not that that knowledge has ever helped anybody in the history of gambling forums. 

 

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on September 26, 2015, 12:21:00 AM
Glad to give you my answers.

1) An asymmetrical hand is any hand whenever Banker has a choice to decide what to do (stand or draw) after a third card has been dealt to the Player.

I really don't get my head around that statement, the Banker really doesn't have any choice, the rules are fixed.  Also the way you explain it, it is basically any non-natural banker hand.

Because every banker hand will either stand or draw after a third card to the Player, so are you saying, "Player draws a third card, Banker either stands or draws", that is an asymmetrical hand??

If yes, then it is IMO simply a label for a non-natural score.  Where does this 15.7% mathematical edge come from?  A friend of mine claims, that when the Players increases after the third card, it is more likely to win, even though the Banker still has a third card to come.  Also it is fine laying out in the retrospective, no casino lets players bet after any card is drawn that I know of, other than Baccarat 7 up in Singapore. 

As far as I'm concerned if you have a bet on the Player and while the third Banker card is being dealt and squeezed, you shouldn't expect to win unless the Player total is 7 or more, having said that, I have won P bets 1 - Baccarat, all of which tells me nothing before the event.

Yeah your right, I've never had a bet on the Player side and watched it decrease on the third card, it's never happened, nor does it happen much when I bet player which is on a 7 or even an 8, and only ONE CARD can stop me getting paid, the other guy is squeezing like crazy only to reveal a 1 in 13 shot, I also never play for real.
[smiley]monkey/crazy-monkey-emoticon-049.gif[/smiley]

Three questions;

1) Define what an asymmetrical hand is?

2) do we need to keep a track (count) of how many times the Player side took a third card for any given shoe?

3) why do you need to press the enter key so many times, before hitting the post button, creating a lot of empty space on all your posts?

QuoteObviously, per every single shoe this ratio almost never will fit this ratio, as any card distribution will produce countless combinations.

Yeah, more possible combinations than stars in the universe, apparently.

Quote from: tdx on September 25, 2015, 11:12:59 PM
Some  more facts ;

1. Look at any old shoe you have and up all the hands with runs of 3 or less.....most shoes will have runs of 3 or less between 65% and 90 % of the total hands in the shoe.

For example:  PBPBPB
                     P  P B B
                     p     B
                     p     B

There are 14 hands and only 2 hands below than the " 3" line.

% of hands above the 3 line = 12/14 = about 85 %

Please, already mathematically shown (and well known I might add) that the streaks less than 4 make up 87.5% of all results.
The bet selection OLD has been flogged to death for the last 20+ years,

Quote
Example,  Player has a 2 and a 1 total of 3.

Banker has 2 aces for total of 2. Player will win the hand between 65 % and 100 % of the time since Player is ahead 3 to 2.

Nonsense, two cards drawn for Player which is on 5, has an expectation of 30% of winning the hand,  the Player doesn't have a positive expectation unless it is on a 7 or more, all this information is available on the Wizard of Odds website.

Also all this information is useless, because as far as I know, nobody is able to act after any cards are pulled, when you bet, you bet blind. 

A load of table superstitious claptrap; here is the real deal >>  http://wizardofodds.com/games/baccarat/appendix/3/
 

At least some come right out with it, a right pain in the butt those that try and build an audience for 3~6 months, being all friendly then turn into a scorpion with a sting in the tail. Quite a few got a pass on this web-site, some of us can smell them a mile off.   

Just had a read of the thread, hilarious, one guess who that might be, with an Indian yahoo account
[smiley]giga/surpris.gif[/smiley]

Two games A and B

A is a throw of a coin where Head is winning with the probability p1=1/2-e, the gain is then of 1 unit. Tail is a loss (of 1 unit) with the probability 1-p1=1/2+e .
B is a little more complicated, if the capital is a multiple of 3, then Head wins with the probability p3= 1/10-e, if not Head wins with the probability p2=3/4-e, (gain or loss of 1 unit).

Wen e = 0, the play A, alone, is fair. The play B become fair when the n of plays tends to infinity.
A and B, alone, are lose when e > 0.

Combinations of the two plays
 
Average profits in B+, (AB)+, (AAB)+ (e=0)
When one uses combinations repeated like (AABB)+ or (AAABBAB)+, one observes that the game becomes gaining for certain these combinations, which can seem against-intuitive!

Obviously the play is paradoxical only seemingly, the results observed are calculated easily and the 'paradox' is explained by the no-commutativity of the product of certain matrix (of transition).
Who would think of finding paradoxical that a matrix product M×N is different from N×M?

One can conceive easily besides other plays, simpler, having the same type of behaviour.

Happy Gambling

Quote from: Bayes on December 30, 2014, 12:14:24 PM

Example 2

In an even chance there are 4 equally likely outcomes taking 2 decisions at a time, i.e., BB, PP, PB, BP. What is the chance of at least one repeat in 4 decisions (note that this equates to 8 hands, not 4, because each outcome consists of two hands)

N = 4 and r = 4, so

[math]P(repeat)=\frac{4^4(4-4)!-4!}{4^4(4-4)!} = 0.906[/math]

or a little over 90%.

You can find a scientific calculator here.

Thought you might find this shoe interesting, relevant to the 90.6% figure above, played last week.

I shall write out the results from left to right using rows of 8 (I approached this shoe using column of eight).

My prime bet option is irrelevant, a secondary "Birthday Paradox" bet option was used, along with other opportunistic options.


BPBBBPPP

PPBPBPPP

BPPPPPPP

PBBBBPPP ("BP" column failure)

PPPBPBPP

PBBPBBPP (2nd "BP" failure, also this 8 hand sequence is same as last but one group of 8, 256/1 !!)

BPPBPPBB (3rd shoe "BP" failure, also mirror image of prior 8 hand sequence??)

PBPPBBBP (4th "BP" failure and extreme rare event of 3 consecutive none-matching pairs group of 8 hands??

PPP


Granted Eirescott catered for prevention of ambiguous no-bets situations (BP BB now bet B), but still bleak to say the least,


Here is what the shoe looked like when recorded normally;

B
P
BBB
PPPPP
B
P
B
PPP
B
PPPPPPPP
BBBB
PPPPPP
B
P
B
PPP
BB
P
BB
PP
B
PP
B
PP
BB
P
B
PP
BBB
PPPP


Fair to say, I initially enjoyed amazing success incorporating this approach into my game, now however, rapidly trying to wean myself from even tracking it.

Quote from: Sputnik on April 15, 2015, 06:03:53 PM
"Regression toward the mean simply says that, following an extreme random event, the next random event is likely to be less extreme. In no sense does the future event "compensate for" or "even out" the previous event, though this is assumed in the gambler's fallacy (and variant law of averages). Similarly, the law of large numbers states that in the long term, the average will tend towards the expected value, but makes no statement about individual trials. For example, following a run of 10 heads on a flip of a fair coin (a rare, extreme event), regression to the mean states that the next run of heads will likely be less than 10, while the law of large numbers states that in the long term, this event will likely average out, and the average fraction of heads will tend to 1/2. By contrast, the gambler's fallacy incorrectly assumes that the coin is now "due" for a run of tails, to balance out."

Well stated.  I was discussing this with sqzbox earlier, soon afterwards I was walking past a Baccarat table and noticed an 8 Player streak, a rare / extreme event I would conclude, this was followed by a few chops, then a 16 P streak,

(only took me 20 mins to type that sentence due to lockups, hey Vic if you produce great software, why is the back engine of this site such a bag of sh1te?)

Quote from: horus on April 04, 2015, 09:04:30 AM
Thanks R-W for an interesting idea. I had to read through that a few times to get it.

deliberate on my part.

Quote from: horus on April 04, 2015, 09:04:30 AMI remember reading some of your posts where you used a kind of an inverted mirror effect and things could get particularly hairy with that as well.

Betting against symmetry, off the menu after seeing a few 30+ hand reverse mirrors.  The problem with it is you need to win within three bets and having the discpline to stop when you don't, you can get sucked into thinking it becomes more due and continue betting into the oblivion.  More  importantly is that you are now anthropomorphizing the shoe / results, and I'm trying to wean myself off such modes of play, because they lack rational logic and don't make sense other than to yourself. 

Horus, a year or so ago when we we discussing pairs.    BB = 1, BP = 2, PB = 3, PP =4

Written in columns of 2's. then betting that the same pair number would not repeat in the same two hand sequence every 8 hand group (I called it non-binary repeat).

Example

1-1-3-3
B-B-P-P-
B-B-B-B-

You now now bet the opposite of 1-1-3-3, so the bet sequence would run, PP (opposite of BB), etc, stopping after the first win.

The average win rate against my own 100 shoes came back at a massive 74%, I was staggered and the feeling of elation which lasted for 9 minutes was amazing.  In the 10th minute I realised the error of my ways, I simply looked at the results as pairs, as opposed to the bet technique requiring TWO BETS to snare any win, a crucial over-sight.  But hey, who cares, maybe if I do it properly it might come back at 55~60%, that still makes it a winner, or maybe I just need to be extra creative regarding MM?

Few years later the penny finally dropped, all I was in effect doing was taking an 8 hand sequence and betting it won't repeat, actually it isn't that bad but could get ugly (rare event).  Now for those that have long memories, you might remember Izak once describing a system of his, were he used the analogy of a white van driving past a spot at the exact same time and it is unlikely to happen that many times.   So I started applying that principal to this bet selection, for a specific spot as an additional bet option.  In other words you wait for an event to repeat, in this case a repeating binary number, then bet it won't happen three times, if it does, then it won't repeat four times.  The true beauty of it is every time you make a move, you have a 75% chance of grabbing a win and a 25% chance of losing both bets.   Pears are nice to eat. 

     

Quote from: horus on April 03, 2015, 10:59:41 PM
Here is about 1000 hands worth of my idea. It did hit one sticky patch....but apart from that performed ok.

worst -2.
best +40.

It is not that simplistic, there are three bets involved in securing a win, therefore some sort of progression needed, which then leads to "how do you recover from any single failure". 

Example, bet against number #2, BBP involves betting PPB, you can't flat bet it.