I really don't wish to argue with anyone about what Albalaha has posted.   I have seen the messages he is claiming to be harsh towards him and they are close but nowhere near being removed but Albalaha removes so many messages in his own threads that a few that carry over in others won't kill him.

I've been casino gambling since the early 1970's and have NEVER had a losing streak of 17 in a row in any game I was playing and I used to be a big roulette phreak in my Bahamas days.

The reason I added to the requests for actual numbers/spins/hands is because I want to play against that evidently bad run and see where I would be bailing out, waiting or just taking the losses and playing on.

Evidently Albalaha is asking if you can survive the 17-20 losses in a row during play.   I want to play it and see if my style can AVOID it.

A Win/Loss registry only shows, well, wins and losses.   Bet a Martingale and you'll lose, obviously.  Flat bet it and you're "only" down 17 at that point in time.  We're all concerned with the middle ground mostly.

How did you get there is the important part to me and evidently a few others.

AD

Quote from: Albalaha on July 24, 2016, 08:00:09 PM
I am not demanding anything from you. If you can't understand LW is enough to work upon showing working of any MM, relax and let it be like this. A few others can work as it is on this. I don't need to prove you anything and you are not being requested to do anything in specific. Move on.

Albalaha,

  I do believe that "The Crow" had a valid request when he asked for the spins and not just the decisions.

  Many of us would like to see how these "worst best cases" came into being.  Actually we probably don't care about "how" they got that bad, we'd just like to work with the numbers ourselves.

  So, add me to the list of those who would appreciate having the actual decisions for these "worst case" outcomes.

  Excel data would be acceptable to everyone I'm sure.

  AD

Quote from: Trbfla on July 23, 2016, 11:03:44 AM
So AD, you are always going back 2 steps after a win to restart? This would work great on streaky shoes but not sure how it does at choppy with 2s and 1s

After a win I will "look back" for the first available "1-2" and start there.

It saves searching for a valid restart and segues nicely into all streaks.

The same goes for something like a 2-4-6 win.  If you'll look at it on paper, it's a very nice ZZ run with the next logical wager being 3-5-7 etc.   Just continue on the ZZ until it loses and then restart right there with the resulting 1-2.

AD

Quote from: james on July 23, 2016, 06:22:40 PM
Thanks for posting the shoe.
Decision 26 is shown as a win betting on P. Actually this is a mutual bet. You can bet on P based on decisions 24 and 25 or bet on B based on decisions 20 and 23.
Decision 27 is shown as a win betting on P. This is also a mutual bet. You can bet on P based on decisions 25 and 26 or bet on B based on decisions 19 and 23.

James,

  On any mutual wager I always take the streak.  234, 345, etc.

  Just my own decision in an attempt to standardize play.

  AD

Quote from: MarkTeruya on July 22, 2016, 09:31:07 PM
Can you post the shoe please.

Here ya go.

AD

Quote from: Ehtelgaeb on July 22, 2016, 07:54:02 PM
Yes, this is what I was asking.  Evidently not.

Adulay please check your PM.

OK, now I see what you're asking.   I was working with the 1-2 loop but have since gone back to flat betting VDW.   Comparing several previous shoes and running them both ways, the outcomes were nearly identical.

AD

Quote from: Ehtelgaeb on July 22, 2016, 01:24:13 PM
Quick question if you don't mind.  Were you playing as you originally indicated with a reset after a win or did you go with -2 stop loss before resetting?

I'm not sure of what the question is but I was simply flat betting each wager.   I was only attempting to see if the play is viable with the waiting from time to time for the appropriate AP to show up to wager on.

AD

I realize that many are stuck on running millions of trial hands but it's hard to beat sitting down at the table once you are comfortable with your bet selection.

Hit the B&M casino tonight and flat bet my way to a very nice +8 net.

Can't complain about that.

This makes three trips to the casino where the VDW play has produced a profit.

Simple yet effective for general baccarat play.

An upload of the shoe should be available tomorrow after some sleep for those who care to take a look.

AD

Quote from: MarkTeruya on July 13, 2016, 09:27:55 PM

It is like, well this has already presented two losses so depending on the stats expectation (i.e frequency of expected losses in a row), stick with it. 

A good plan.

Thanks for the reasoning.

AD

Quote from: Nickmsi on July 12, 2016, 08:17:55 PM
Good question Trbfla . . .

Is there any advantage to betting ONLY when we have 2 of the same AP forming at same time, such as 1-3-5 and 3-4-5 or 2-4-6 and 4-5-6, etc.

I tested it 2 ways:

1.  If there was a completed AP before the "synced" pair occurred, then start a new cycle.

2.  Just play for the "synced" pair every time no matter if a completed AP would have occurred.

The results were about the same.  The graph is attached.

Besides poor results there were very few opportunities to bet.

Be glad to test any other ideas or tweaks you can think of.

Cheers

Nick

Excellent.  Thanks for picking that one up and running it.

Saves ME a bunch of wasted time!!

AD

Quote from: Trbfla on July 12, 2016, 03:29:31 PM
.....also I've noticed that when one side has 2 chances to win like a 135 and 345 or bpbb... Then it almost always wins....anyone see that?

Yes, that's a good position to be in.  Sometimes I think it would almost worth it just waiting for that combo to show up to wager on exclusively!

AD

Quote from: sqzbox on July 10, 2016, 10:47:19 PM
There is also a 1-5-9 possibility.  PPBBPPBPP

Although the 2-5-8 would have already pulled a "win" on that set.

AD

For the 5 or so of us who are working with the "VDW" method of play, I'd like to condense down just what we're working with.

If the shoe starts out PP, then the wager is obvious under the 123AP.  Wager on P.
If it wins, you will have solved the process and can move on.

The next wagering opportunity presents itself with another 123 starting at hand #2.  How convenient!

Now, assuming you did not win that first wager at PPx, you would have PPB going into hand 4.  There is no AP that will fulfill the requirement to wager, so hand #4 is not wagered on.

After hand 4 you find your self with either PPBP or PPBB you have two choices. 

PPBP results in another "no bet" situation (neither 135 or 345 are available) leaving us only the PPBB situation to wager on with the 345AP.

See anything developing here?

With the PPBP set up you should already see that although there is no wager on hand #5, hand #6 WILL be bet and it WILL be a Player wager.  Both the 246 and 456 AP's come into play.

So, after hand #5 we have a PPBPB or a PPBPP the wager will be on P.    Pretty straight forward.

Now, let's change the result to PPBPPB (loss on hand #6).  What's the next wager?  147 is correct.  The other two iterations of "7" don't fit the box. (567 and 357).

This is also as far as you can run with the VDW on this set.  If you lose the 147AP, the 8th and 9th levels both are simultaneous bets which is no good for our purposes.  Back up and restart.

Now obviously, should you win ANY of the wagers, the set is complete and you can restart another group of 9.  Where to restart?  Simply back up and find an appropriate start based on being able to make a wager.   The example would be winning the 123AP means back up to hand #2 and start another 123AP.  Basically just stay on the side that just won if playing the 123, 234, 345, set.

The same goes for any wins on the 135, 246 and 357 sets.

The bottom line?  (For those of you who have read this far) reads like this:

2's go to 3+.   Z-runs of 3 continue on.

That's it!!

Yes, all of the writing and mathematics of the VDW Theorem show that in a wagering situation.

If you lose on a 12(3), you wait two hands to wager on the 246 or the 345 if it went the other way.   In any case, it's still a "2 goes to 3" situation.  If it loses, you're right back to the 1-2-x restart!

If the 2-4-6 wins, it drops right into a 3-5-7 and so on.

You do not wager when both sides can win, you back up and restart.

So, one more time:

#1   All 2's go to 3.  (and beyond)
#2   All ZZ runs of 3 (or 4 using the Ellis count) continue on.
#3   On any loss, move to the next AP if available otherwise back up to a suitable restarting point.

Put pencil to paper and you'll see this for yourself.   

I didn't invent this or even recommend it.  I'm just showing what the VDW system play works out to in real life.   Please continue to test and report any results that you determine would help.

AD

Quote from: Nickmsi on July 07, 2016, 02:04:27 AM
Yes, Adulay .. .

The Stop Losses were based on each cycle or set of 9 spins.

They were for my VDW Roulette but I suspect similar results can be attained for baccarat.

Cheers

Nick

Nickmsi,

  Interesting angle.  I'll go back and look at the previous sheets and see how they change.

  AD

Quote from: Nickmsi on July 06, 2016, 01:33:47 AM

Stop Loss = -1      Stop Loss = -2      Stop Loss = -3      Stop Loss = -4
Won 15/20 Sessions   Won 17/20 Sessions   Won 14/20 Sessions   Won 15/20 Sessions
Profit = 427 Units   Profit = 428 Units   Profit = 280 Units   Profit = 328 Units

Nickmsi,

  This "stop loss" you're testing is for each set of 9, correct?   Lose two wagers and reset for a new set?

  AD