Whenever we test a given method we could experience the illusion to have discovered the miracle betting mood to get the best of it itlr. Meaning we get an edge over the house. Meaning we can invert the house negative edge into a positive one.
By acutely thought progressions or brilliant betting selections it doesn't matter.

There are many scientific assumptions and tests available to prove our system is really working or not.

The best and most annoying assumption is that no one progression could overcome a mathematical negative edge game.
Or that one coming from a BJ pro stating that is a perfect gambling miracle to triple up our bankroll two times in a row before going broke. 
I personally agree and I can't dispute this assumption.

Then it comes the second and more interesting assumption: there's no way to place our bets to get an edge without the use of any progression. Meaning we cannot get any kind of fk advantage choosing what to bet and what to not bet.
So despite our efforts directed to find some possible miracle EV+ spots, we aren't going anywhere as mathematics dictates that every our bet will always produce a negative global outcome.
Now I personally disagree.

Obviously, a possible EV+ betting selection will get better results by the use of a progression, providing it will take care of the itlr fluctuations of the game and after having properly assessed our long term edge.

Experts think that such positive edge bet selection doesn't exist at all and they are right because they keep thinking on mathematical terms.
So every single hand the game is producing will get an average of 50.68-49.32 mathematical expectation.  And every f bet we'll place is getting a long term 1.06%-1.24% negative edge.

So far so good. No news.

Back to the topic.

Many internet winning method sellers claim to get an edge over the house (some i.diots claim to get a 70% edge over the house, a real bighornshit).
Obviously we know with 100% accuracy that no one progression could have the best of it.
Likewise we know that a given edge must be produced by a simple flat betting procedure and I don't know a single author able to demonstrate that a FB method will give the player an edge.

Imo, the real accurate test to ascertain that a method is really a winning one is a betting procedure capable to totally erase or hopefully invert the P hands' inferior expectancy.

I mean a betting method where our P bets will get a zero results gap with B hands at worst or a slight edge itlr.

In the long run.

What's the long run?

Difficult to say, but I dare to say that we are in good shape after having noticed that our P bets are showing a zero or a slight positive outcome after thousands and thousand of shoes where B hands are getting closer to the 50.68-49.32 ratio. So no tricks or positive variance issues are allowed as any P bet must have a zero or positive otucome at worst.   

In a word, a possible winning method should surpass my personal ABG rule suggesting that a winning bet selection must produce either neutral or positive P betting long term outcomes, that is a betting selection capable to totally erase the B advantage over thousands and thousands of shoes.

How many betting selection systems are able to get such accomplishment?

Summarizing, imo a long term winning method should be able to catch those spots where P bets are going to get neutral (at worst) or positive long term outcomes.

Mathematics dictates in every P spot we'll bet we are getting a -1.24% disadvantage, but actually and for some weird reason my rule likes to state that a winning system should get a 0% or a slight positive edge.

And I'm only talking about the worst B/P proposition the game will produce, the P bets.

as. 

   
 


 



 


   

 



 



























   

Quote from: Mike on May 22, 2015, 08:21:54 AM
AsymBacGuy,

Send me your system by PM and I'll prove it doesn't work. 

Thanks, but I save you the time to test it.

Somebody else is doing the job right now.
 

as.

Thanks for your attention, soxfan.

If you'll have the kindness to purchase it, you won't read some spectacular assumptions.

But if you keep losing after having read my ideas, well call the police. 

as. 

That's my book I'm glad to introduce here.  It will be printed in october.

Contents (so far no editing was made, so i'm sorry about my bad english):

- General concepts

- Differences between a perfect 50/50 game and baccarat

- The role and the weight of asymmetricity

- Dispositions and distributions

- Baccarat variance and the "decline in probability" concept applied to baccarat

- Banker side events vs Player side events. The "enemy concept"

- Approaches based on the most likely events apparition

- Getting an edge by flat betting on some selected spots, part one

- Online vs live casinos

- The long term winning baccarat player attitude



as.

Imo, Sputnik and Bayes provided very good replies.

I'd add the value of the decline in probability concept thanks to a past contribute of sxzbox (or something like that) member.

In a word and for the few who don't know the concept, rarer events tend to appear clustered at the start then their appearance will dilute.
Despite the original work (Spencer-Brown) didn't suggest a possible gambling advantage, I found that many rare occasions tend to be clustered, then deeply decreasing their frequency.

Since we cannot establish a "start" to many rare gambling situations, we should wait the times when they will appear very clustered, then betting toward the opposite events' apparition up to some point.

Curiously, at least at baccarat, some unfavourable rare situations will tend to follow such distribution, meaning that our "enemy" will come out very often or almost nothing at all.

as.   







 

Jim, you can safely assume that the WL sequences are very different depending what you are registering.

Some players, as gr8player, prefer to get some hint on the actual trend and side domination (well knowing what theorically happens most), others prefer to base their play just on relatively rare long term findings (me and many others), others prefer to utilize progressions giving to the bet selection a minor or zero impact.

IMO, there's no way to get any hint without observing/registering a decent amount of outcomes.

So, for example and imho and providing a simple BS, it's better to wait a WLLLW to bet than wagering on simple W or L or WL or LW or LL sequences.

The problem is to grasp the BS providing better reliable outcomes than others.

If the game would be a 50/50 game, any sequence (I can't use anymore the word disposition) will form identical results, so the number of a sequence like WWWLL will be equal to the identical counterpart of WWWLW.
That's not the case for many situations.

as.   






   















   

 




   

A big question in gambling is when do you stop?


Much of the decision will depend on whether or not you still feel lucky..


Keep playing because "we are feeling lucky" or quitting the table because "we are feeling unlucky" are really surprising words coming from a professional player.


Maybe Renzoni had an extraordinary talent to "control" the game and after all his book is an enjoyable reading.


Jimskie, thanks for the quote but there are no mystery bets.

The bets are coming after having selected some sequences and everything follows the expected, so no mystery involved.
 

as.



 







 








   

Hi Sputnik.
Just a question.
How do you manage the tax issue when the game will provide the invariable "stagnation" periods at a given same level?

For example, if your MM dictates to bet 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1 and the deviations are included in such space, you are losing money as the vast majority of any WL sequence or other "proportional" sequences will provide a small loss (banker vig at baccarat, zero/double zeroes at roulette).

Thanks in advance

as.

Quote from: Bayes on December 31, 2014, 05:05:03 PM

Every time we try to force the next hand/spin to conform to a sequential probability (as we often do when creating systems) we end up assuming that trials are dependent, which they're not, so we have committed the gambler's fallacy.

Hi!
This is totally true at roulette, 100% absolutely wrong at baccarat.

as.

Quote from: Rolex-Watch on September 20, 2014, 02:28:52 PM
But in Baccarat there is never any edge, it is a money game. 

LOL.



as.

For once, I agree with my beloved buddy Rolex. 

Deviation is the norm, balance is the exception.

Other than what the common experience dictates, many brilliant works demonstrated it.
Anyway, imho, roulette is totally unbeatable.


as.