Quote from: Sputnik on June 19, 2013, 08:30:25 AM

I post the hint above and you develop your own killer method.

This is a system that developed while I was tweaking the "Very near infallible Roulette system".  That system is way too complicated and almost impossible to play except at home with pen and paper and time.

Cheers

Well, with a horde of "in-laws and outlaws" currently in my house, I sequestered myself in the computer room and ran your sample set based on a simple set of SIX different, basic, wagering plans.    Although these are the main ones I use in baccarat, they work just as well for any EC game as these are all MECHANICAL plays with no thinking involved.

Here are the results:

B1 Chase = +8
S42 Basic = +5
F2 = +16
F1 (Chase) = +2
Straight 'Z' = +14
Basic AOD = +11

These are nothing fancy and there's literally no thinking involved.  You pick the play, you play it.  If you should determine during a round of play that one play would be better than another, you change over to it, but this assumes you subscribe to the theory of trending of some sort.

Only one of the "system" plays required a single wager of 6 units, but then it's one of the worst plays (F1) and probably the one that most people play initially until they actually learn something.   F1 being "Follow the 1".   Only good in any streaky game, of course.

I'm afraid we're attempting to manipulate our play in such a convoluted method that it seems the more work we do, the better our results "should" be.   This is apparently not correct as evidenced by these 6 simple plays.

If you read these forums year after year, there is a fact that rises to the top that cannot be discounted.  That is that everybody has a great theory or idea but nothing ever comes out of them.  All kinds of ideas are tossed up only to be brought back a few years later by another crop of budding casino winners.  Of course that's what keeps the forums running, the ad money coming in and the community alive.

However, the fact remains that almost nobody is actually making any money out of the casinos.

So, as roulette is a mathematical game, slighly biased against the player, perhaps one should get back to tweaking the basics of wagering and wealth management instead of trying for the "home run" of casino betting.

Slow but sure brings in the money on a steady basis.  My brother hasn't figured that out yet and loses his bankroll on pretty much each scheduled casino trip although he is usually "up" sometime during the session!   Learn to win small AND often and I believe things will work out much better.   It may not be as "exciting" as cashing out a $20,000 marker at the table, but then it sure beats taking out a loan to pay the food bill.

AD (slightly off topic but I had just tested that sample run and needed to comment on it)

Quote from: Bayes on June 16, 2013, 05:31:40 PM
It's a fair point, but the fact that "true" baccarat uses a finite amount of cards would only have practical significance if it were possible to get an edge through counting them (perhaps in the latter half of the shoe), but to my knowledge no such advantage is possible.

I agree.  Card counting is not a viable play in baccarat.

Quote from: Bayes on June 16, 2013, 05:31:40 PMReplacing cards may result in something other than the game of baccarat, but since (according to the experts) not replacing cards doesn't make any difference insofar as potential profits are concerned (unlike Blackjack) then it has to asked, where is the harm?

The "harm" is that you're no longer playing baccarat!  Introducing what amounts to a whole new shoe after each hand is simply not the way to play the game.  That in itself is reason to avoid this particular iteration of the game.

Although card counting is apparently ineffective in baccarat, there is a large subset of players who do believe that the shoe is basically "cast in stone" once the first card is drawn and they can determine, with some degree of success, if there is any type of bias showing up.   If their assumptions are correct, they then have a real advantage (or perceived advantage) that they can play the shoe "correctly" and pull a win out of it.

AD

Quote from: Bayes on June 16, 2013, 08:57:01 AM

AD, not wishing to start a flame war here, but...
WHY is a computer generated game any different, in terms of outcomes, than a "real" game of baccarat with dealers and shoes?

The comment was made with reference to this "new" game that was posted.   As well you know, the game of baccarat is dealt from a FINITE shoe meaning it has a defined start and finish to it.   The rules of the game are quite specific.   Reshuffling the cards after each hand makes this something other than the game of baccarat.  It now becomes an RNG that produces a number that you wager on.

Quote from: Bayes on June 16, 2013, 08:57:01 AM
Disregarding rigged RNGs, why should the distribution of B & P be significantly different in an RNG if the game is modelled correctly using simulated decks?

The distribution of the B&P may be mathematically correct and indeed random, but it NOT the game of baccarat if the RNG is shuffling the cards after each hand.

Quote from: Bayes on June 16, 2013, 08:57:01 AM
Do you think RNG's are "junk" because they're too random, or perhaps not random enough? what is it about a real shoe which makes the game beatable, as opposed to an RNG. I'd really like to know, because this stuff comes up all the time on forums and it drives me crazy. It always seems to come down to a lack of trust in RNG's (because it's perceived that manipulating outcomes is easier), rather than any hard evidence that outcomes are inherently different.

Once again, if the RNG game would play from a true 6 or 8 deck shoe, then it might be well worth looking into.  However, as it shuffles each hand, it is not the game you are paying for.  It is merely a computer generated, perfectly modeled game of "Pick a Number" and nothing more.

Baccarat is an international game with standard rules.  The casinos keep trying to change it in many ways, always to THEIR advantage, in order to make it look like something else.   One of my biggest pet peeves with most casinos is their refusal to allow you to sit out hand.  But I digress.

Baccarat is a game played from a set amount of cards, not a new deck every hand.  That is the reason that I gave the "junk" rating to this new game.  It would not be difficult to make the RNG game play it "correctly", they just don't want to do that and that's why I will not play RNG baccarat for real money.

I hate to keep harping on the "finite amount of cards" thing but it is a KEY part of the baccarat game.  Cards are removed and not replaced.  This is a big deal and I believe there have been attempts to use the Continuous Shuffle Machines at the baccarat table and the experiment failed miserable as nobody would play the game dealt that way. 

The hardest part of the baccarat game, at least for me, is the start.  You don't know what the shoe may be doing and you've seen nothing to suggest a strategy.   Now bring in the RNG baccarat and you're looking at a new shoe every hand!  Not a good position to be in.

AD

Having read the offending comment, I'll have to go along with Esoito on this one.

This is supposed to be a place for civil discussion and hopefully mutual progress towards goals in roulette.

Childish and sometimes inflamatory outbursts by adults should not be treated as acceptable behavior here.

AD

"The cards are shuffled after each hand".

No need to read any more.  It's merely a computer generated "game" with a front end that resembles "Punto Banco" or a version of Baccarat.

Just say no to this piece of junk.

AD

Quote from: TwoCatSam on June 04, 2013, 07:21:35 PM
Shoe 894 had a profit of 15 units with a draw down of 42 units with the largest bet being 11 units

OK, this is boring.

Any comments?

A drawdown of 42 units on the normal green table is just over $1000.

This doesn't look all that good, just from that perspective!

AD

Darn it.

I made another reply to this thread and I swore I wouldn't.

Oh well, if Al won't send me the penultimate bad number from that spreadsheet I'll just send my solution to the problem to Victor and if he believes I've solved the problem legitimately, I'll post it up.

AD (180 replies to a pointless challenge.  Go figure.)

Quote from: Albalaha on May 12, 2013, 03:15:31 AM
You never did number 3, otherwise you would have come up with results jumping like a frog.

Well, if you'll remember back a few weeks, I did jump up and down when I told you how I solved this odd challenge with the help of my losing, craps player, brother.  Even posted up the results on your board.  Too bad only 4 people saw it.

Quote from: Albalaha on May 12, 2013, 03:15:31 AM
              This challenge is much like a very difficult hurdle race.

This challenge is pointless.  However, it does keep your name up "in lights" so you can pretend to be somebody in the finite roulette world.

Quote from: Albalaha on May 12, 2013, 03:15:31 AMOnly innovative ones can think of doing something here.

I think I already did that.

Anyway, how about sending out the next spreadsheet with the second worst number.   DO NOT tell me the number, just post up the spreadsheet like you did with the first one showing "W" and "L".   My curiosity is now getting to me and I'd really like to see if it can beat it again.   I'll run it EXACTLY like the first one, bet by bet, spin by spin.

AD

Quote from: Marshall Bing Bell on May 10, 2013, 07:33:07 AM

To be fair, why would he bother?

All you'll do is say, "Yep, played that like a tournament too, and won +1550 units. 

No, if he can come up with the "next worst number" I can attempt to validate MY own solution to his goofy challenge and put an end to this waste of time for once and for all.

I'm not quite sure what Al is looking for but it's evident his exposure to roulette is limited to a very small subset of the game.

Has nobody here ever played in a roulette tournament?  Any gambling tournament?

Hopefully his next "challenge for the ages" will have a bit more structure to it than "beat this number" and then tell me how you did it.

It's been beat.  Now I just need another number to validate my process to make sure it wasn't just a lucky streak.

I'll be more than happy to post up a play by play, just need to make sure the first one wasn't a "fluke" win.

AD (actually I believe the first win was something like +79)

Quote from: Albalaha on May 10, 2013, 02:10:00 AM
Captain,
      It is not so simple thing to do.

Al,

  Give me the next worst number and I'll run it again.

  AD

Quote from: Albalaha on May 09, 2013, 05:24:15 PM
Ad,
      You have no right to say so. It is my challenge. You claimed to win this but shying away to show how. Further, I have never claimed to have beaten this particular challenge.

Al,

  Once again you have misread and misinterpreted what I have written.

  If you will read my message, it said "You have claimed to have beaten roulette".  Period.  Stop.

  Not only did you make this claim, you used it as your signature in forums for quite some time.

  I did NOT say you had beathen this stupid challenge thing.   

  Unfortunately for all of the unwashed masses on these boards, you somehow managed to avoid telling anyone just how you managed to "defeat the game of roulette", so pretty much all of your statements then become suspect.

  On the second point, how many times do I have to tell you, in writing, how to beat your silly challenge?

  Play it like a tournament.   DUH!

  And to finish this off, at least for me, I will now apologize to Al for teasing him and picking on him, using his own statements.  It was too easy and not really fair for me to do that.

  I've seen this type of behavior in a few other forums and did not like the tone that it set, so I will publicly admit that I was trying to play with Albalaha and will cease this form of torment.

  I am sorry to have used you as the punching bag in the roulette forums.

  Good luck and continue on with your quest to beat roulette by stalking the forums.

  AD

Quote from: Albalaha on May 09, 2013, 06:55:05 AM

You claim to be a dispersion killer and running away to see the dispersion. If you have any real approach that can work in such bets, write that clearly, otherwise try your luck somewhere else.

Al,

"You claim to be a roulette winner and have "beaten the game".  If you have any real approach that can work in such bets, write that clearly, otherwise try your luck somewhere else."

This would be known as "turnabout is fair play".

AD

Quote from: Albalaha on May 08, 2013, 05:24:58 PMnot prove anything serious.
           Ggasoft, Adulay and Flat_ino, if you feel you can play and beat this, prove your methods upon the entire data. If the method is really workable, that will win another number having similar traits too. If someone reverse engineers this data to get a fake win, he will be exposed very easily.
          A method that wins good performing number and that can handle the worst too, is truly difficult. I have yet to see any in any of the forums.

Al,

  (sigh...)

  I've asked you several times for whatever the next worst number is to VALIDATE my previous solution to your silly challenge.

  As you've already "defeated" roulette (by your own words) I'll just assume you're tossing this innane challenge out just for grins and giggles.

  So, I've showed a profit on your challenge.   I'm still waiting for whatever the next losing number is to see if MY solution is valid.  Get your act together and post up the next number that desperately needs to be beaten down in the Great Albalaha's Roulette Challenge (and goat rope) of 2013.

  I'd hate to put out something that you didn't approve of.

  Oh yeah, the local indian (Native American) casino just paid for ANOTHER new Glock 21 for me.   But alas, it was baccarat and not roulette that did all the "work".

  AD   

Quote from: Albalaha on May 05, 2013, 06:34:28 PM
Captain,
        You have only told the results without telling anything about the methodology.

I not only told you the results, I told you exactly how I arrived at it.   Re-read my original post on your board.

Quote from: Albalaha on May 05, 2013, 06:34:28 PM
Those results may be imaginary because you claim to beat it with flat betting, which is quite indigestible . . . .

It may be imaginary to YOU due to your incorrect deduction based on an improper logical fallacy.  You just can't believe it was flat betting, eh?

Quote from: Albalaha on May 05, 2013, 06:34:28 PM
If you have really beaten this (even with slightest profit) with a sensible approach which someone will use on a straight up bet, why are you shying away to show that to all?

Why am I "shying" away?   Why, to get you all excited because at least two people have already solved your innane "test" and it's bugging you that you can't see it!

PLAY IT LIKE A TOURNAMENT using your previously posted rules.

Quote from: Albalaha on May 05, 2013, 06:34:28 PM
So far, nobody has done anything to go near beating this data.

Say what?  At least two people have "solved" this incredible time waster as we type.   

Feels funny to be on the other side, doesn't it!!

Anyway, what you fail to see is that your "challenge" is totally unrealistic.   Nobody, and I mean NOBODY is about to chase a single number and being told in ADVANCE that this will be the worst possible number in 15,000 spins makes it so far off base that a I'm amazed anyone events thinks about trying this.   It's pointless and fits into no reasonable gambling scenario, especially given the original parameters of the "challenge".

So, I'll try to exit this discussion gracefully with the following recommendation. . . .

Play it like a tournament and beat the silly "challenge".

AD (too much fun but done with it for now)

Quote from: Albalaha on May 04, 2013, 04:17:04 AM
  Whoever claims to beat it, be it Adulay, Flat_ino or Greatgrampa need to illustrate their idea working on this data openly here. Otherwise, the claim to beat it with all these abovesaid methods, can be safely considered as imaginary if not false.

Al,

  I do believe I explained it on your own forum.

  The actual solution came from my craps playing brother, the born loser.  Once he explained it to me, it made perfect sense.

  Using your rules as posted, the solution was to play those 15,000 finite numbers like a tournament.

  I've already given you the results (posted) in another thread.

  What more would you like for this unrealistic challenge that seems to be your current focus?

  AD