Quote from: Tomla on October 12, 2016, 04:42:24 PM
and how does one get a copy?

Knowing the problems related to publishing, I'll sell my book only in Vegas.

as.

Hi BtW!

Your first post is interesting and I agree with most of your ideas.
But I tend to disagree about the 5 strategy points you mentioned later.

Imo you are assigning too much subjectivity to the game.
"very long absence of singles"......"seasons of 10, 12 or 15 spins" and so on.

At gambling, besides the EV-, we cannot rely upon anything but the starting probability and the statistical laws related to it.

Where can I find the "pinwheel" you were talking about?

Thanks in advance and cheers

as.

Quote from: Tomla on September 02, 2016, 02:38:30 PM
I'm not sure , maybe he got a gig on "dancing with the stars"

Lol.

The book is ready.

as. 

Giz, you are one of the best read among the gambling world ever.

And I think to know what you mean. :-)

as. 

Quote from: Albalaha on July 24, 2016, 04:44:38 AM

  and who is that expert?

Easy to find out. One of the few roulette posters intervening on the baccarat section.

as.

Quote from: mogul397 on July 24, 2016, 03:39:31 PM
They're all "single reply".  If you're referring to ND's usual philosophical
slant that he ads to a topic, they are "single" by definition of his post.
Saying that "any single reply makes sense to you" creates confusion in my
head as to how it makes sense or why. Since I always have a hard time
wrapping my head around vague comments.

I meant that every single comment here cannot be criticized unless it comes from a "no way to beat the game as every bet is EV-" person.

There's no way to guess what single D/C event will come out, actually there are plenty of ways to determine what will be the most likely distribution of those events.

The ball landing is a mere physical effect, maybe you'll get some hint studing the "trascendental probability" field.

In a simplier way, you'll notice that after a certain number of spins the ball privileges or not some sections of the wheel and such propensity is linearly placed with the consecutiveness of the slots considered and touched or not by the ball.

Naturally itlr everything will follow the normal probabilty line, as the probability to get some delayed outcomes will balance.
Since we know that itlr we'll be sure losers, we have to rely upon the short term probability that some chances will be heavily or not favored over the opposite counterparts.

In a word, we know that something will going to happen by a degree superior to a mere 50/50 game.

as.




   

   

Not surprised about that, I've always stated that the most brilliant gambling experts are roulette researchers; actually the only person here who seem to have found one possible way to beat baccarat is a roulette expert.

as.

Any single reply posted here makes a lot of sense to me.

In particular, ND reply confirms my suspicions that the distribution of some dozens created by connecting two natural double-street is quite different depending on which 6 numbers we are connecting.
Of course the probability to win will be always the same, yet we should assign a role to how many adjacent numbers are represented among the double-street chosen.
That, imo, affects in some way the distribution.

as.





 

Quote from: Blue_Angel on July 18, 2016, 09:02:10 AM

What we know for sure is only what happened, the rest are merely estimations, it can be correct or wrong.

But try not to cost you a lot when you are wrong, while you are right take as much as possible.

One wrong cannot be corrected by another wrong...

Excellent comment.

as.

I noticed you got more W than L just on the first outcome of each row, so why not stopping the betting after a L without looking for a +1 or -3 result?

Anyway jonas work is really brilliant, I start to think that roulette could be beaten.

as.


   

A good post with good replies.

Imo it's quite easy to assess if we have found a kind of edge putting at work a given system.

First we need a decent sample and we can even manipulate it, for example reversing the EC apparitions. This ploy is very important at baccarat where chances are not equally probable.

Secondly W must come out more streaky than singled and the opposite about the L part. (Obviously the same concept applies on any streak or single class depending on which W or L side we are considering)

Third, if we use a progression, winning spots taken on a given X level must be unproportionally more prevalent than superior X+1 winning spots.

In reality any gambling game seen from the house side point of view itlr will follow those guidelines, so we should be in good shape knowing to have gotten the perfect or almost perfect opposite statistical situation.

as.





   

Quote from: MarkTeruya on June 05, 2016, 12:03:36 AM
It's impossible to predict when a side is going to win, regardless of card tracking, symmetrical hand counts / ratios or otherwise.

One could track Bank naturals v's bank wins via 5th card and gain a fair expectation that a 4 card card natural Bank is due, yet still not know precisely when it is going to happen until after the event, which makes it all superfluous.

I resurrect this, because it's always been hovering in the back of my mind, sitting at a table tracking / counting the Bank asymmetrical v's symmetrical hands, even knowing a shoe is rich in 8's and 9's, the punter still doesn't know the precise moment to bet, therefore unworkable.

I've played many a shoe where at the on-set (10~15 hands) you simply can't hope to get paid out unless your betting side has a  score of 8 or 9.  Every winning hand has a score or 8 or 9 and only after say 15 hands you start seeing sides winning via Barbecue, 1-Baccarat, 5-4 etc.   

In those circumstances were a shoe maybe rich in 8's and 9's (how rich is rich?), balanced ratio between Player and Banker wins, many 4th and 5th card draws.  Natural Bank is due!! When do you "go all in" on the Bank, answer is you can't.

The figures may be true in your first post, but so what, when you tracking criteria is 100% you can't hammer the Bank, too bad so sad if you do and the Player suddenly decides to go on even a 4 streak. Or do you wait until your criteria is met and wait for a 4P streak, lot of work required here, asymmetrical hand count, tracking of 8's and 9's and a 4P streak, then go all in, correct?     

Thanks for your interest in my post.
You made some good points on that.

Mathematically speaking and talking about BP hands there are no other valuable tools to guess what will be the more likely hand WITHIN A GIVEN BUNCH OF HANDS.
I know it's a difficult task to accomplish.

As you correctly sayed, first step is registering the AS/S ratio. We know that per any shoe the most probable range of AS hands will be limited within the 4-14 value.
Then we know that nearly one third of total hands on average will be formed by naturals negating any AS situation.
Starting our betting solely relying upon those percentages won't get the job, of course.
We need, imo, a relatively deviated and unexpected situation as a fair P streak occurence.
Now we have to think back evaluating how many AS hands had taken place so far.

The more this P streak came out on the initial portions of the shoe, the less will be our future degree of precision.

Moreover, some AS hands will unexpectedly favor the P side, still the only real shifting situation had come out.

I mean that after a 4 P streak and after having registered zero AS hands on the first, let's say, 20-25 hands, the probability to get B on subsequent hands is higher.

If many AS hands had taken place or whether some AS hands favored the P side (mostly because they did work to build up such relatively long P streaks), the P 4 streak starting betting point loses a lot of its possible value.

Actually long P streaks do contain one or more AS hands favoring this P side.
Of course the same it's true about relatively long B streaks, now obviously the AS factor went in the expected way.

AS parameter is just an added factor increasing our expectation to get A rather than B.
We want to pay a tax on our B winning bets having a reason and not by coincidence.

Besides the naturals, another possible important point to consider is about how many and how 6 or 7 points had fallen on the P chance.

P 6,7,8 or 9 point negates from the start any possible B advantage. Then we are more favorite than even money to get a P drawing hand crossing a B standing hand (any B standing hand is favorite to win itlr as it adds to naturals and 6s,7s even 3s, 4s and 5s).

Itlr long B streaks are more likely than not composed by AS hands; on the other part long P streaks are more likely than not formed by one or more AS hands.

B or P streaks springing from perfectly 50/50 situations are not good starting betting points, imo. Unless a huge AS/S ratio was shifted to the right before a given P streak had taken place.

as.




 













   

Quote from: soxfan on May 31, 2016, 12:18:17 AM
With m y current 13 step parlay progression I'm buckin up against a 95% win rate. So, I get clipped for 500 unit in progressions bust out every 100 shoe, so I can win well and regular by capturing just 10 units profits on the 95 winning shoe and I average better than that, hey hey.

Probably with my over selected BS tested on millions of shoes, your win rate will be close to 99.999999999%. 

as.

Even though it could appear as a really weird subject, even some "subjective" situations might help us to find what should be our best course of action.

Naturally everything is based upon some objective mathematical and statistical issues where the subjective factor is just an indicator. So we must be very confident about the reliability of this subjective indicator. The pro of this type of "registration" is that a human guy could have experienced long positive or negative situations, meaning he/she carefully played a fair amount of shoes.

Let's say a guy/girl seated next to us is telling that his/her plan is to wager only toward the appearance of P doubles vs superior P streaks adopting a given MM. Unfortunately he experienced a 25 or something consecutive losing streak, that is he got 25 2+ P streaks with no one P double. I can assure you that this is just a sort of science fiction finding, anyway... 

First thought should be that in some way this guy knows some basic long term statistical features. We don't want to go deep in the process of assessing how he wants to get the best of it by this finding or if he carefully registered the 2/2+ P streaks ratio (and many other issues related to that).

If we believe in what he says, we know that he experienced a very long negative (for his strategy) sequence, a 5 sr deviation.

Since we're patiently waiting some other triggers dictated by our personal plan, we want to try to take advantage of this subjective deviation.

Hence our new temporary trigger will be shifted to any situation getting any BPP sequence, as now we know that our new "buddy" will be theorically more entitled to get more P doubles than P superior streaks.

It's interesting to notice that a random world cannot be affected by a subjective situation, in a word that the future actual shoe outcomes we are playing in cannot be influenced by a human.

At the same time and taking for granted what the buddy he's talking to us, the probability this player will get higher deviations on this very shoe (and even more on next shoes) will be very very slim.

Nevertheless, nothing can prevent this actual shoe to produce a slight predominance of P 2+ streaks, but the probability to get a 2/2+ P streaks ratio highly deviated to the right are almost non existent.

Now If we want to take as our new trigger such individual probability interfering with an objective probability, what will be our best course of action?

And what if this player leaves the table after one or two losing bets?

Does the probability to get more P doubles than P superior streaks be objectively influenced now or over the next shoes by an individual registration?

as.

This is not a post about bet selection, even though at baccarat there are better BS than others as some events are long term mathematically shifted.
So for example and generally speaking wagering to break P 4s is a better selection than wagering to break ANY 4s and the worst option is a plan intended to break B 4s.
This because itlr B4<B4+ and P4>P4+.

In reality, the intermediate situation (wagering to break any 4s) may give us interesting statistical features as globally taken the 4s class will go more likely back and forward around the zero (equilibrium) point (at the same time giving a theorical lower probability to get strong one side deviations). That is a perfect situation to set up a very diluted progression.

The above statement is a sort of paradox, as many times we'll be forced to bet the mathematical disadvantaged chance (breaking B 4s), but globally taken such strategy will give us a slight lesser impact of variance as now we're wagering to not get two simultaneous opposite relatively high deviated situations for long time.

Imo the idea to include some breaking streaks strategy in our plan is well placed at baccarat for several reasons.

I want to mention only one here.

Let's take the casino war game, a st.upid game where the highest card between players and house will win (unfortunately giving the house a pretty high edge for the same card value rule).

Unfold several times a multi deck shoe, register the simple A or B outcomes (ignoring ties) and itlr you'll see that some events will be more likely than others.

Good, so why casino war game cannot be easily beaten?

There are several reasons for that: we have to play every single hand, the house edge is quite high, we can get a precise situation only playing heads-up with the house, but foremost we don't have the opportunity to bet the house side (obstacle overcome in some way by a large spread betting). Then now casinos are using continuous shuffling machines or cutting large portions of the deck.
Still the basic principle remain the same.

At baccarat things are more complicated as there are four different class of ranks having the same value (10s and pictures) and not only any side is getting a point adding two cards value but there's even a third card intervening with some structured rules advantaging B side.

The overall effect made by those particular features will produce a kind of slight specular baccarat situation than the casino war game produces.

Back to the progression topic.

No one progression can control the game (no matter how high is the bankroll utilized compared to the table limits offered) whenever we start the progression at a zero level.
Not even a so called flat betting winning strategy unless it was proven to get an astounding high edge on player's favor (we all know there's no way to do that).

What we can do, imo, is setting up a rigid plan on multiple economically connected situations where either multiple strong deviated and unexpected events had taken place within short periods of time and/or some multiple expected situations had stalled around the zero point within too large periods of time.

We see that there's no a precise direction to be followed: either wagering toward multiple expected deviations and/or waiting the appearance of multiple unexpected events roaming around the zero point for long time.

In a word, we shouldn't want to get mere single RTM or single deviation effects as any random world can't be controlled by those features.

Imo the key word to work on is "multiple".

Multiple events can't stall or deviate forever and ever but at the same time we cannot know when and how much such events will get their expected probability to "balance" the previous features in a way or another.

Therefore, imo, if we don't want to wait some rare favourable flat betting circumstances to bet, we must be prepared to set up a low and multilayered progression starting at a point different from zero. In a way or another (RTM or expected deviation), of course.

And the word "multiple" cannot act other than improving our expectation.

as.