1

**AsymBacGuy / Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr**

« **on:**

**Yesterday**at 01:45:11 am »

The best baccarat player in the world is not the person who is capable to win the larger amount of units but whoever keeps his/her losses very close to the negative edge value (say an average -1.15% of total money wagered on BP hands).

At the end of the year we should try to recollect how money we have bet and how much we have lost at tables. If the sum is around 1.15% of the money bet we are really in good shape.

That is the number of W should be almost equal to the number of L, only vig caused our debacle.

Unfortunately it's quite likely we had lost more than that, maybe we have added some side bets here and there or that we have used a bad money management. Of course no MM could provide us a winning method thus we should accept the idea that the game cannot be beaten other than by a proper bet selection.

Imo there are only two ways to get a winning bet selection working itlr:

- flat betting strategy where number of W exceeds the number of L and the vig impact

- short multilayered progressions oriented to get a key W or Ws happening on restricted sequences considered as profitable

Alas, those strategies cannot win when applied at random EV- games. And for that matter they can't win at EV=0 games either.

Many baccarat books or, worse, internet system sellers, keep stressing us about the importance to "quit when ahead". They want to teach us how to win and then they put in emphasis such silly phrase.

If I'm winning and I have to quit to preserve my bucks, why not starting to play a kind of an opposite strategy?

And when do I know I should quit because I've reached the apex of my winnings?

Gambling is a game of streaks, at baccarat say a game of "gaps" between two opposite situations that not necessarily must be B or P hands.

It's just the natural streak appearance that destroy every system. Providing the game is randomly placed.

Then our task should be directed to spot situations where a lesser number of streaks should be more probable than normal thus increasing the likelihood to get a more expected outcome. And it can't be that unless a kind of unrandomness or super complex dependency is acting.

But even if you take for grant that bac shoes are not randomly formed, you can't forget that we're speaking about an edge quite high but limited to very few spots and not to every shoe dealt.

Let's make an example of one of many singular random walks we could put in action fictionally and oriented to disprove the concept that bac shoes are collectives.

Say we want to set up a short "road" where we'll classify outcomes as A or B depending whether after a winning natural point happening on a given side the two next hands bet on the same side are producing at least one win. If we win in two attempts we mark 1, otherwise we mark 2.

Thus our trigger to start or follow up the classification is the winning natural happening on either side.

Example: B9 winning point, we'll bet two times B; if we win we mark 1 otherwise we mark 2.

Whenever naturals do not show up or by gaps higher than 2 we do not mark anything.

In reality this is an irregular random walk in the sense that two-step betting action will get an obvious nearly 75% EXPECTED probability to win whether a kind of progression is applied.

And naturally it's not about the general more likelihood to get 1 or 2, just the distribution of such 1s and 2s. That is that that 75% value is more or less deviated toward one side.

No matter how whimisically are the actual results, this new 1/2 line most of the times won't follow the natural probability distribution, especially from a place selection point of view.

Not everytime but most of the times.

as.

At the end of the year we should try to recollect how money we have bet and how much we have lost at tables. If the sum is around 1.15% of the money bet we are really in good shape.

That is the number of W should be almost equal to the number of L, only vig caused our debacle.

Unfortunately it's quite likely we had lost more than that, maybe we have added some side bets here and there or that we have used a bad money management. Of course no MM could provide us a winning method thus we should accept the idea that the game cannot be beaten other than by a proper bet selection.

Imo there are only two ways to get a winning bet selection working itlr:

- flat betting strategy where number of W exceeds the number of L and the vig impact

- short multilayered progressions oriented to get a key W or Ws happening on restricted sequences considered as profitable

Alas, those strategies cannot win when applied at random EV- games. And for that matter they can't win at EV=0 games either.

Many baccarat books or, worse, internet system sellers, keep stressing us about the importance to "quit when ahead". They want to teach us how to win and then they put in emphasis such silly phrase.

If I'm winning and I have to quit to preserve my bucks, why not starting to play a kind of an opposite strategy?

And when do I know I should quit because I've reached the apex of my winnings?

Gambling is a game of streaks, at baccarat say a game of "gaps" between two opposite situations that not necessarily must be B or P hands.

It's just the natural streak appearance that destroy every system. Providing the game is randomly placed.

Then our task should be directed to spot situations where a lesser number of streaks should be more probable than normal thus increasing the likelihood to get a more expected outcome. And it can't be that unless a kind of unrandomness or super complex dependency is acting.

But even if you take for grant that bac shoes are not randomly formed, you can't forget that we're speaking about an edge quite high but limited to very few spots and not to every shoe dealt.

Let's make an example of one of many singular random walks we could put in action fictionally and oriented to disprove the concept that bac shoes are collectives.

Say we want to set up a short "road" where we'll classify outcomes as A or B depending whether after a winning natural point happening on a given side the two next hands bet on the same side are producing at least one win. If we win in two attempts we mark 1, otherwise we mark 2.

Thus our trigger to start or follow up the classification is the winning natural happening on either side.

Example: B9 winning point, we'll bet two times B; if we win we mark 1 otherwise we mark 2.

Whenever naturals do not show up or by gaps higher than 2 we do not mark anything.

In reality this is an irregular random walk in the sense that two-step betting action will get an obvious nearly 75% EXPECTED probability to win whether a kind of progression is applied.

And naturally it's not about the general more likelihood to get 1 or 2, just the distribution of such 1s and 2s. That is that that 75% value is more or less deviated toward one side.

No matter how whimisically are the actual results, this new 1/2 line most of the times won't follow the natural probability distribution, especially from a place selection point of view.

Not everytime but most of the times.

as.