Xander is absolutey right, but I'd change his words in "nobody CAN'T DEMONSTRATE to win itlr without an edge".

If anybody can demonstrate to win at games without a mathematical edge he would be millionaire without placing a dime on the felt.
The problem is to present a valid scientific evidence of such claim.

Every other attempt to say "hey, I'm consistently winning" without scientifically proving it is a total mere bighornshit. No matter how good or smart will appear the author or the hypothesis involved at the start. 
Especially whether such winning players are placing red or, rarely, green chips.

A final world: Glen hadn't written worse ideas than anybody else and, hey, he's not wagering red or green chips at the table. So i would use more respect for him.

as.

Quote from: alrelax on May 27, 2018, 11:52:29 PM
ASYM,  strong or weak, Streakinv or Antistreak, whatever you want to call it, either way is a strategy either way is playing to match what the presentments are, it doesn't matter it just depends on your vision, frame of mind,  that's what I've been trying to express in my numerous detailed threads. Some people call it streaks and some people call it anti streaks, it's a description but either way is very viable and either way is very winnable as well it's very losable.

But do one thing all the time and nothing is more guaranteed to lose than just that.

Naturally you are right, and that's why is so important to select at most our betting opportunities.
We could be right or wrong at the same level as betting every hand, yet with our very selected plan we are paying an inferior tax and trying to get advantage of RTM or statistical long term findings.

It's quite more likely to get a RRRRRBBBBB at roulette than a BBBBBPPPPP sequence at baccarat.

Imo such baccarat sequence is just one possible sequence over 1024 possibilities for 10 consecutive decisions. At roulette itlr the average probability to get AAAAABBBBB will be very close to 1:1024, at baccarat it isn't.

as.   

Quote from: Xander on May 27, 2018, 12:17:05 AM
Bellagio is ok, it's not great because it has so many immigrants that smoke like dragons.  The smoke makes it unbearable at times.  The Ven and Pallazo are nicer rooms in my opinion, you don't have the piss all over the bathroom floors, and the machines are cleaner.

Actually you are right.
At Bellagio many players like to smoke not only cigarettes but also cigars, thinking that cigars will give them more respect (and it's a lol assumption as they are smoking plastic wrapped cigars that in Montecarlo and everywhere would be considered as real sh.it).
And yes, very often Bellagio high stakes toilet floor is filled by piss. 

as.

Best value?
I think where you can choose to wager at many tables getting huge comps at the same time, so providing you can place a minimum $1000 bet, Bellagio will be the best option.
Then Venetian.

TI or Stratosphere don't belong to the "huge value category", imo.

as.

Quote from: soxfan on May 26, 2018, 10:19:50 PM
A shrewd old cat told me that the only pure mechanical style that would win well and regular over the long run is the anti-streaks style. I tested his style bucking up against 1175 live baccarats shoe on the party poker live casino and managed to capture just over two units per shoe profits so maybe he is right, hey hey.

He is absolutely right thanks to long term baccarat findings:

1- differently to roulette outcomes, itlr baccarat results will produce a far less amount of long streaks than singles or doubles or triples.

2- it's a proven fact that any bac hand will feature a slight propensity to get the opposite hand just occurred (M. Shackleford and some others)

Now, only a fool would think that applying this strategy every shoe will provide profitable situations no matter what.

S.hit happens rarely or in clusters.

as.



   

Quote from: Albalaha on May 22, 2018, 03:26:06 AM
Hmm. A person with 6% edge against house should bet flat with such an amount that can let him survive in the worst possible scenarios. After an obvious enhancement in the bankroll(due to piling profits), he should increase his base bet and continue to bet flat on that amount. Gradually, the 6% edge and this way of increasing the base bet will optimize his profits and keep him safe as well.

Exactly this.

as.

Itlr, you can't win at a negative edge game no matter what, you can just diliute the inevitable risk of ruin at best.

If someone would think otherwise, he/she could present his/her work to the scientific world, maybe trying to get the Nobel prize worth millions.

The only way to demonstrate that some EV- independent games are beatable is presenting exhaustive studies that in some speicific spots unrandomness prevail to the randomness.

as. 
     








 

Baelog, despite the worthless sample, the trick is to try to reduce huge fluctations in either way.

as.

Thanks Al!

And, LOL, maybe someone should test his/her MMS before posting on this site.

as.

It's very hard to explain strategies coming from years and years of study and play and positive testing.
Frankly if my methods seem to be a bad or a good copy of a worthless strategy invented in the XIX century, I'm totally discouraged.

So I won't go any further.

Lugi: I was referring to the asymmetrical/symmetrical hands distribution with its deviations, an additional tool that IMO helps a lot.

Cheers

as.

Quote from: alrelax on May 09, 2018, 12:15:46 AM
Yes most certainly that is correct. And when you can see extreme value for low-risk and you see it there in front of you as you said it's much easier to walk away with something substantial then sit there and push it back and forth and get sucked in the volatility of the banker player if you didn't start winning and keep winning.

This, this and this.

The statement enlightened in red should be placed below the "Baccarat Forum" section.

as. 

No, no, no no and no. :-)
Of course it's my fault.

In the shoe you posted Lugi (thanks for your interest) and not taking into account additional important shoe per shoe long term statistical situations, I would have won every hand with my #2 plan.

First BB is followed by BBB (W)

Second BB is followed by B (W)

Third BB is followed by BBBB (W)

This is just a "normal" deviation as a fictional player betting after any B double against another B double is W=3 and L=0

Notice that a second fictional player betting against a BB, BB sequence hadn't the opportunity to bet and the same is true for a fictional player betting against a third BB, BB, BB sequence.

After the cutoff point of BB, BB, BB my plan is over, I'm not chasing or hoping to get situations coming out very unlikely. (Strings of 5, 6 or more B doubles could come out sooner or later.

The important thing is that you consider separately those three fictional players with their W and L situations.
Actually and according to my shoe per shoe findings, I play toward clustered winning situations or after a single losing situation.

Plan #1

To take advantage of the very likely situation to get at least one cluster of P 1s and 2s per any single shoe, you have to wait the first condition to appear. That is an apperance of a P single or P double.
In your shoe, first trigger is single P followed by PPPPPPP (a loss), then the second trigger (another P single) is followed by PP (a win). after that we cauldn't care less of what happens next on the same P1-2 streak.

Do you remember what I've stated about the early P 3+ streaks?
More often than not, they are producing a shoe more rich of such streaks than the average expected ratio (4.5 per shoe). Obviously. It's more likely to get strong deviations after an early strong deviation had come out than the opposite situation (there are intricate card distribution issues that confirm this I do not want to talk about).
Since for our #1 plan P 3+ streaks are very bad, I'm less inclined to put in action this plan even if it would have won  after the first L.
Alrelax seemed to agree with that even by considering other aspects.

Notice that with my plans (there are at least a dozen of them) it's far more likely to get a starting W (not here for #1 plan), a WW situation (plan #2), a LW situation (plan #1) as opposed respectively to a starting L, a WL situation and a LL situation.

In addition you see that with my W, WW or LW plan I'm trying to get the best of it not compelling to or forcing the normal expected ratio being W=3 and L=1.
That's because I want to extract a very long winning plan reducing at most the inevitable impact of sequences as WWWWWWWWWWWW or LLLL or LL-LLL-LL that will come out along the way.

Per every starting L, WL or LL events, you expect to get a triple favourable amount of starting W, WW or LW situations. Actually it's even larger than that if the plan dictates to bet banker.
Only the vig reduces the economical return, thus we have to select at most our betting opportunities by a multilayered progression.

@BA.

I know your interesting point, but I think that a 1:32 plan is much more difficult to manage. Maybe I'm wrong.

as.


























   

Quote from: alrelax on May 08, 2018, 03:27:11 AM
Side Wagers is a love-hate relationship as you are totally correct and accurate it can come really quick in the beginning or it won't come at all and you keep attempting and losing your Buy in. The way that I learned how to do it that has benefited me well and a bunch of players is to win some money and set it aside and try for 60 or 70% of the shoe if it did not produce them in the beginning and try the last half or two-thirds of the shoe with the side Wagers. However I like a lot of the side Wagers in the very beginning but if it's the first shoe it's going to be money out of my bank roll or my buy in of course and I'm risking that to make some quick money with the large return on the side Wagers.

Thanks Al, that's interesting.   

After all, house cannot prevent side bets to come out clustered and players cannot prevent to get those side bets silent for long.
The problem arises when we want to chase the silent world and/or not taking fully advantage of the clustering effect.

Maybe it's more an art than a science.

I'm sure that people lose a lot more money on B/P hands than on side bets for one simple reason:
it's easier to quit the game after winning some side bets (or noticing they are not coming) whereas it's very hard to know how to quit or stay wagering B/P hands that are a lot more probable and thus more dangerous.

as. 






   

Hi BA and thanks for your interesting comments.

Nope, my methods  have nothing to share with avantderniere.
For example, AD strategy dictates to bet after a 3 streak in order to get more hands on the same streak. And it doesn't take into account the actual distribution or the expected average distribution.

More importantly, B and P sides are very different from a 1s-2s-3s distribution point of view.
Try to bet against P doubles by wagering P singles and P triples or B 3+ streaks wagering B singles and B doubles and let me know if it doesn't make any difference which side you are betting on itlr.

What it counts, imo, is the average distribution of a given series of shoes and not what happens within a single shoe or a couple of shoes, no matter how deep are such very short term deviations.
If after two shoes the number of B doubles is 25 and only two B 3+ streaks had come out, I won't bet a dime.
Actually such huge deviated ratio comes out from few clustered B double patterns and "few" means huge short term variance that cannot be balanced shortly.

I'm not focused on "how many" but always on the word "how".

as.   

 

I think he was unlucky to be lucky with those 200:1 shots.

It's quite simple to understand that B/P hands cannot be beaten so easily (or nothing at all), however side bets seem to be fantastic to recover losses or to make fair profits, unfortunately in the wrong hands they lead to disaster more rapidly.

I observed in Vegas that many former huge B/P bettors now prefer to make progressions on side bets. Many of them quit the game after hitting one.
I remember a regular middle age asian woman hitting a F-7 for $800 then leaving the table but making the huge mistake to observe the table and not to go home.
Next hands of the shoe produced the like of 5-6 panda bets and a couple more of F-7s.
She was cursing and cursing and so disturbed to make a second error, that is to join the closest table where a new shoe was ready to be dealt.
Naturally no one side bet came, and no one side bet came on the very next shoe.
At least she was so smart to finally going home losing just a small amount.

Al, how many consecutive real live shoes have you seen without at least one panda or one F-7?
Thanks!

as.