Please login or register.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - AsymBacGuy

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 47 Next
Baccarat Forum / Re: Playing Baccarat & Decision Making
« on: March 21, 2019, 01:50:26 pm »
Very interesting thoughts from Al and Jim in a way or another.
I'll print this thread for good measure.

What happened to me is that I won too many bets deviating from my very selected betting plan and I know very well that there's no way to be right multiple times wagering many bets without having to expect multiple losses.
The numerous Margaritas I've drunk didn't help either.

Fortunately I wasn't mentoring anyone and probably this is the reason why I played so bad.

I hope this lesson will help me and many other reading the forum. 




Baccarat Forum / Re: Playing Baccarat & Decision Making
« on: March 20, 2019, 05:15:08 am »
Unfortunately, there is no scheduled mechanical wagering plan that can, 'BEAT THE CASINO' each and every time or even the majority of times with predetermined plays that the shoe must match in order for the person to win. 

I'm working hard to show up that this mechanical wagering exists.
Nevertheless, today I played like a, forgetting to follow your principles and after being ahead for long, I quitted as loser.
The classical proof that even playing with an advantage one can easily miss the target to aim for.

Not ashamed to say this.

I'm an idi.ot.


Baccarat Forum / Re: Playing Baccarat & Decision Making
« on: March 18, 2019, 09:49:41 pm »
Speaking more practically.

Say the actual shoe is:


Now what are we betting?

Maybe B as in the past we got a PPP streak or do we try to get a longer P streak?

Say next outcome is B then the shoe is:


Now are we betting to get another B streak or to get a single B therefore wagering P?

I already know the answer.
The average bac player will bet B, period.

Needless to say, next outcome (ignoring ties) will be B 50.68% of the times and P the remaning 49.32%.
Average bac player has lost 1.06% of his money when betting B and the very few players who chose P lost 1.24% of their money.

I mean, could exist some additional factors helping us to get a possible edge on this bet?



Baccarat Forum / Re: Camaraderie
« on: March 17, 2019, 11:40:25 pm »
That said, from what I see it only happens when there is a strong trend. Have not seen camaraderie in a non trending random shoe for those who do not believe in trends.

I agree.
Mostly bets are concentrated when a kind of strong VISUAL trend is going to show up, so camaraderie seem to be an effect not a cause.

Sayed that, sometimes just one player could be the target to follow or to play "against", the main example is whenever an idio.t is increasing the bets trying to get a single winning hand after an endless streak.
Other times a smiling guy reach your table starting to bet whimsically then winning every hand, so why not  to follow him at least for one hand?

Surely most of the times whenever a player is quitting the table as strong winner is because almost or all the table had won.
Actually when I want to play higher, besides than following my plan I try to observe the other players as they might be an additional indicator of my bet selection.
Any action, made either objectively or subjectively (or both), will follow the common math expectancy.
Thus we could set up an "infinite" number of different random walks and you know that to get 2 WIAR you need to win one hand.
Sometimes objective and subjective situational factors will add up, no matter how smart are the players involved at a given table or how smart is our strategy.


Honestly I think that it would take 3 years not 3 days to show even superficially the points named above. :-)


The idea is fantastic and Vegas would be one of the best places to meet (imo).
But not in July or August.  ^-^


AsymBacGuy / Re: Baccarat unbeatable plan #1
« on: March 11, 2019, 10:40:38 pm »
Yep Al! Still many players like to wager via strong progressions.

Back to the subject.

When we consider two opposing events A and B having the same (or almost the same) probability to appear, we'll expect deviations according to the binomial model.
Such events could be as simple as a Banker or Player hand or highly complicated specific situations (for example what's the next winning hand after a side had won with a natural 7 vs a drawing hand, etc)

No matter how sophisticated is our approach to select two opposing A and B situations, itlr everything will equalize with the well known unbeatable deviations (burdened with the vig).

This is true whether the game is perfectly randomized and it's very difficult to negate that shoes do not present such feature.
Thus in order to try to demonstrate that shoes are not that random, instead of assessing the randomness by statistical tests (chi-square, etc), we should work more empirically, say thinking in more practical terms as it's what really counts.

If I'm able to find out the spots when two opposing situations do not adhere to the common deviations (that is they are more "restricted") I'm on cloud nine.

In fact, there's no way I could spot favourable situations per se, the only hope is to get what I name "limited random walk", a sort of pendulum which moves from the left to the right and vice versa within a restricted range and crossing several times the 0 point.
Since I do not think I'm a genius capable to dispute math laws, the only explanation is that cards distribution of every single shoe couldn't be that random as we think.

Therefore and thanks to my long analysis I dare to state that not every A/B opposing situation will produce the same expected deviations and, more importantly, that not every shoe is playable as some shoes are so polarized at the start that we better get rid off them without betting a dime.
I mean that we can't try to be right on every shoe dealt as many times the possible unrandom effect can't be properly grasped by human eyes.

And this is proven by the fact that no matter how many random walks we wish to set up, a given card distribution will present similar lines on each of them.

Now the question is how to classify a "not playable" shoe.
Next time.


AsymBacGuy / Re: Baccarat unbeatable plan #1
« on: March 11, 2019, 03:18:38 am »
It's important to take track of derived roads (four are displayed right on the screen but you can construct infinite roads).

BEB, SR and CPR are three displayed "derived roads" that are representing three different random walks being a direct reflex of hands distribution.
To simplify the issue a bit, BEB represents a 1-step random walk, SR a 2-step random walk and CPR a 3-step random walk.

It's interesting to notice that the main road (the main BP distribution) will almost always form omogenous distributions on derived roads according to the main road.

The most imprtant parameter to look for is the constant asymmetrical distribution on such four distinct situations.

There are several factors that endorse such assumption.

- one is the general asymmetry of the game

- two, cards are depleted once they are used, so the future deck is always asymmetrical even if we do not know which side will be favored by such asymmetry.

- three, the shoe we're playing at is not a perfect random model by any means.

It's up to us to define and restrict the values and assess the limits of such different random walks.

Say we want to restrict the variance effect thus trying to find the situations when A can't be higher or lower than a -4 or +4 B deviation respectively.
We know that whenever such "cutoff" limits are reached we're playing a 100% edge game.
I mean that whenever A reached the -4 cutoff value (or B the +4 value), our bets could only have a positive expectancy.

Thus the main issue is to find opposite situations where A or B can't produce higher deviations than 4.

Secondly we must approach our strategy in order to get the least deviations, even if we know that an 8-step martingale will get the best of it in any case.

Are we going to bet 256 units to win just 1 unit? Maybe, but it's a worthless and risky effort as the certainty to get an 8-step random walk cannot be achieved by 100% accuracy.

Moreover, we shouldn't forget that a continuos +1  -1 random walk provides us a light loss (vig impact).

So what's the best strategy to adopt?

See u tomorrow.











Alrelax's Blog / Re: Baccarat Sections and Turning Points
« on: March 11, 2019, 02:34:53 am »
There's no fkn way other sites are offering better ideas than what suggested here.
It's really ridiculous to hear "I can't lose" claimers suggesting, for example, to wager B after B in so called "proper" situations.
Such "proper" situations exist only in their altered minds needing a specialized help.

Notice that no serious poster here tried to sell anything to anyone, we've just provided some insights in order to try to beat the game itlr.

Moreover notice that in any case bet selection site offered "seminars" to beat baccarat, a thing very common in other sites.

Those unintelligent.s want to teach us how to beat the game and they not even know how is the probability to win with Banker 4 dealing a third card 8 to the P side.

Before taking any further info, ask those geniuses about this probability and you'll get a "it doesn't matter" answer. A clear sign that they do not know anything about baccarat.











Alrelax's Blog / Re: Baccarat Sections and Turning Points
« on: March 10, 2019, 09:27:18 pm »
Despite of having different math and stats ideas than Al, this topic is one of the best ever read about baccarat.
Moreover Bally and Jimskie are among the few best gambling reads you can find on the net.

Casinos wouldn't be so glad to have us as customers.




Alrelax's Blog / Re: Watching others play baccarat and learning
« on: March 05, 2019, 04:55:47 am »
I know.
Very few bac players like to bet toward a "two or three step" positive outcome, they want to be right immediately for several times.
Even though this is the best approach to get multiple winnings, itlr they are deadly wrong as every single pattern will place according to its probability we can't alter.

There are no shortcuts, besides some intricate methods producing an EV+, we have to expect the same amount of winning and losing hands, therefore it's our duty to lose less money on those losing situations (not playing them at all would be a perfect move) and to enlarge the profits on the winning ones.



Alrelax's Blog / Re: Watching others play baccarat and learning
« on: March 05, 2019, 02:56:51 am »
One thing for sure.
Never ever play alone or with just one player.

The problem is with very few players we can't get additional hints that sometimes can be interpreted in our favor.
Not mentioning that casinos aren't going to deal many "free hands" and, imo, it's our advantage to bet very few hands.



Alrelax's Blog / Re: Baccarat Sections and Turning Points
« on: March 05, 2019, 02:51:37 am »
Valuable insights Al!


AsymBacGuy / Re: Baccarat unbeatable plan #1
« on: February 27, 2019, 12:19:54 am »
Thanks all for your replies.

No matter how is the strategy, positive and negative results will come out along according to the binomial probability.
Since our enemy is not the house edge but the variance, we know that part of the shoes will present more negative situations than positive situations even if we are trying to reverse the probability by following trends or altering our strategy.

Imo the better countermeasure to take is not to play the shoes who are not adhering to our plan and not hoping that the following section of the same shoe will balance the previous negative outcomes.

Same is true about those positive shoes which can easily transform themselves into nightmares (Al' turning points).

Following this approach I've schematized my results as:

immediate win= +++
win after a loss= ++
immediate loss= - -
two losses in a row= - - - -

Notice that the total amount is unequal (5 + and 6 -) as there's always a vig working.

Our goal should be oriented to get a zero sum, meaning we are compelled to spot and ride the positive situations and not chasing the negative territory.

Unfortunately as I sayed above, some shoes start negative and remain negative as it's a natural thing that MUST happen.
And negative shoes are presenting negative clusters as well as positive shoes are presenting positive clusters. But remember the different wieght.



AsymBacGuy / Re: Baccarat unbeatable plan #1
« on: February 18, 2019, 02:44:56 am »
Imo to win at baccarat itlr, our plan must be considered in cycles adhering at most by taking into account just two steps:

1-  winning the first hand wagered is of outmost importance;
2- winning the second hand whether the first was lost.

This simple two step wagers plan considered by cycles must have each a higher 75% of success.

When it happens to be wrong at both opportunities, we need to be very careful to place more bets as strong negative variance is going to come out more often than we think.
Thus waiting to get a fictional positive outcome is not sufficient to restart the betting.

The reason is that baccarat is very similar to a coin flip endless proposition, therefore WW, WL, LW and LL sequences are presenting whimsically but itlr they'll be equal.

We cannot guess the lenght of the streaks, therefore we should simplify the problem by considering columns as singled or streaky (any streak).
It doesn't matter what strategy we like to adopt, what really counts is whether how many times we'll win the first or the second hand (really or fictionally), then classifying the results.

Since any bac shoe is a finite limited model, we know that more often than not a losing series won't be balanced by a perfect counterpart and the same is true taken in the opposite direction.

I mean that some shoes cannot be played at all as we do not want to find us in the position to guess the opposite of what our plan is dictating.

In a word, we'll be in a far better shape not playing certain shoes not fitting our plan at the start than trying to follow the actual shoe or, even worse, trying to hope to get balanced outcomes that have no room to show up.

Professional players like to bet a lot on very few spots and they never want to chase previous losses and it's not a coincidence that they'll stop the betting after two consecutive losses.


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 47 Next