Ok, thanks for the explanation.

Actually I'm playing a very conservative strategy: 80% of the time 1 unit, in the remaining 20% bets are raised from 50% to 100% (maximum is always 2 bets).

More rarely I employ aggressive strategies when I want to bet very few spots where the supposedly probability to win a series of progressive wagers is very close to 100%.

I do not apply anymore long strategic plans as sooner or later they'll easily sink into the variance ocean.

What about you?
as.   





 

Quote from: Sputnik on September 27, 2018, 03:11:48 PM
AsumBacGuy I want to say thank you for a nice topic.
Wondering if you could give a concrete example of the staking plan.

There are so many variations!

Cheers

Thank you.

What do you mean as "staking plan".
Thanks.

as.

Everything you've posted makes much sense to me.

But we know that only real live sessions are the proof of what we are talking about.

Anybody wanting to win money could PM me. We'll meet us in Vegas.
Anything for free.

as. 

Ok Glen.

First our plan is to assess how much an average shoe will conform to the actual shoe.
Such players are betting $5.000 or more per hand, thus they won't to be fooled.

Secondly but more importantly, is how the actual bets are conforming to a general flow of the game.
Now everything comes out in handy such as the general propensity to get good starting points at a given side, predominance of one side, cutoff points.

Moreover, we are carefully noticing what other players' results are. For example, univocal good or bad results are coming whether the shoe is not prodcuing simple patterns as long streaks or long univocal easily detectable patterns.

To simplify, display results are just one side of the issue. Cumulative players outcomes are another part of it.
Naturally very rarely display results are just correspondent to the sum of every single player distinct results as it's quite difficult to get "humanly" easily and long detectable patterns.

If poker is a game of imperfect informations, bac will be a lot more on that issue, but yet one side must win no matter what. Not forgetting that balancement is just a virtual accomplishment to get.

Example,

Say we think that next hand will be B and most players are betting B.
Now I want to assess if majority of side players are winners or losers.
Say most part of players are losers or heavy losers. I won't bet B, I won't bet anything.
I could be right or wrong but the overall probability is slightly oriented to get a loss.

Now say that the previous hand was a loss, we have no indications on which side to wager and most players bet one side. What to do?

Even if we could be trapped in the middle of a losing streak, I would follow the majority of players. Thet is players who  had lost the previous hand so probability to get a winning hand for them is slightly endorsed.

I mean that it's quite difficult to find spots where every player at the table is wrong or right, besides very rare situations when the shoe is very polarized.

Imo, our task should be to spot the situations where 0 goes to  1 or viceversa or at most where 1 goes to 2 or 2 to 1. The rest is pure randomness.

What do you think?

as.

 


 

 






 

I'm a strict objective statistical results lover but our bac earnings had gotten a huge increase by additionally adopting the suggestions you have posted here.
And I'm talking very seriously.

It's about 6 months I've chosen to mentor a couple of very high stakes players and so far we haven't experienced one single losing session.
To the point that in one occasion floormen stand behind us to ascertain we were not applying an edge sorting strategy.
LOL.

as.




 







 

Besides playing and playing,  the best way to get additional money is to mentor high stakes players and not asking miseries from common people. Otherwise the inventor should share ideas for free. Or write a book. Or simply shut up.
Another option involving celebrity would be to give a lecture at MIT, but more likely than not the listeners would laugh at him/her.

Therefore system sellers are 100% scammers by definition.

Giz provided interesting concepts here but the idea that randomness involving perfect independent events might be controlled is totally unacceptable.

To win at games we need to find spots where probability values change. And to do that we absolutely need finite dependent events, that is games of cards.

Roulette can only be beaten by defects of production (biased wheels or biased software).

as.   

Quote from: alrelax on September 06, 2018, 12:39:30 AM
When I was younger especially in Atlantic City and up in Connecticut had no idea what the casino hosts were doing in actuality. But they got that 4 hour minimum with those average bets for the room food beverage and incidentals for the higher line players and there's a reason why they do that!! 

But there's a lot more than that, they do. Of course we know all that now many years later but what they do is very good and they're very good at how they keep players there.

Yeah!

You kept stressing about the importance to play wisely and actually and without any doubt this site is the only one to provide meaningful insights about how to reduce the house edge, to say the least.


as. 

Quote from: alrelax on September 06, 2018, 12:07:57 AM
I have witnessed numerous people win hundreds of thousands of dollars in short periods of sections like 8 to 15 hands and I've seen those same people almost every one of them give it back over 1 to 4  shoes, because they couldn't repeat what they just did. 

I've seen it way too much!

Exactly.

You have to win very few to stay alive at this game, imo.

That's why casinos entice players to wager every hand.

as.

No need to think.

Average distributions will take care of it.

People who make a living at baccarat want to wager very few hands.

as.

Good points Al.

If I can't win mathematically, I want to get all the possible weapons to be at my side.
Statistics, actual outcomes, flow of the W/L players at the table, everything.

There's no fkn way that strong winning players are going to give back the entire amount won on the actual shoe because of the possibility they'll get the same amount of losing situations on the same shoe. Maybe they are wrong to set up their bets, not the percentage of W/L decisions. 
Not mentioning strong losing players.

At the same time  and conversely taken the concept, more often than not shoes containing multiple winning TIES or other winning side bets aren't going to give back the money won on the same shoe.

That is that shoes NOT forming multiple winning situations must discarded from our play.
At every negative edge game, we must hope to get solely one situation: winning clusters.

We do not want to chase a losing situation unless it would be strongly deviated to our side.
For example, after 60 or more hands and zero or just 1 TIE had happened, betting TIE would be a sensible option. We'll lose 20 or so bets in the effort at worst.

Same about ties not coming out consecutively or 1-hand gapped for 50-60 single tie hands.
In this instance, a progression can get the best of it despite the rarity of such target.
Notice that we are going to bet after an event searched had happened.

as. 

Moreover, a quite low probability is supposed to show up either very rarely or in clusters (meaning by lower gaps than what expected probability dictates, frequently by very strict gaps)

Almost never a  rare event is supposed to show up by the perfect general probability pace.

Do not forget that a rare event must catch up a possible deficit by getting a higher frequency on single shoes or conversely diluting a high past frequency registered on multiple shoes.

The expected EV is always the same (-14%) still the ACTUAL variance is very very high for obvious reasons.
Sooner or later some mathematical situations promting ties will arise, and there's no way that a given event will come out more often than not without showing up at least once.   

as.

 




 

Quote from: Albalaha on June 28, 2018, 08:01:19 AM
House edge is a big evil and when it is tough to beat approx 1% edge of banker or player(rather considered impossible), thinking of beating a 14x house edge could be closer to insanity. I have worked upon tie bet for a very long time with no success. Why would one go for such bets with super heavy burden?

Well, a deck particularly rich of even cards will greatly enlarge the probability to get ties, for example.
Not mentioning that the percentage of 4/5/6 cards employed to form each hand follows some controllable variance lines.

When the 5 cards/ 4 or 6 cards forming hand ratio has reached very high values, it's time to bet ties.

as. 

Welcome to your new position Glen!

as.

I'm very happy to hear that.

Despite being in strong disagreement with him on some gambling topics, I know for sure Glen is a great, respectful, generous and competent person.
Not forgetting that he played most baccarat shoes than anyone else here and there.

A warm welcome, Glen!

A special thanks goes to Vic that made a hard work to mantain this site alive.

as. 



 

Thanks Al.

Of course I'm not referring to you, but actually I voluntarily made the mistake to say that 5 cards are prompting a tie more than 4 cards to see whether someone wnated to dispute this (correctly).
In reality 5 cards are the worst scenario to get ties.

I agree with you about the general perception of ties any player gets: you won't' think about them unless they had come out very clustered or very dispersed (or nothing at all up to a point).

as.