The name Bo Hawkins rings a bell from the old GG days. I don't read the archives there anymore because of the virus warnings that different posters have mentioned.
There were some real characters back in the day for sure. There was a guy that lived in Vegas called Rob who seemed to know the score with all his 'gaming alert' threads mentioning what the local Casinos were up to. I enjoyed his posts and then there were some complete nutcases like that 'senlung' character promoting all the Dragon stuff which turned out to be a load of nonsense. I wonder if anybody ever found out what the bet selection was for his super-deluxe strategy which went for crazy money. Funny/strange times in a way not to be repeated.

Johno, so you were the one with Bryan's triggers!  I think it was some kind of running joke in a way where hundreds of people (or so it seemed) kept coming out of the woodwork asking for Bryan's triggers.

I found it for anyone interested but last time I posted up something from this 'wayback' site, it just re-directed to the home page I think. The original Baccarat site itself is now long gone.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110713042010/http://baccaratforums.com/t6335/

Thanks for posting up that Johno!

So although we can deduce that Baccarat is roughly a 50-50 game, there is a lot going on under the surface with all the different betting opportunities such as FLD, OLD etc...

Now obviously all these different bet selections can't be appearing all at the same time. Some of them could be missing for the majority of a shoe. Let's face it, things don't happen like they are supposed to! For if the law governing the long run were truly replicated over the short run, casino table games would have been extinct long ago!

Alrelax posted up this shoe on one of his most recent winning threads. On the face of things 30 Bankers vs 25 Players does not sound too extreme right?

[attachimg=1]

However there are three situations in this particular shoe where there is a short term discrepancy of 20 decisions involving a binary decision. The amount of short term disproportionate occurrence in this shoe was off the richter scale and it's no wonder the chip tray was half emptied.

As Craig Greiner states in his book  ''The challenge of the game presents a unique paradox! The short run is unequitable to the long run. So when it comes to gaming relationships and probabilities, though the whole is still equal to the sum of its parts, the parts themselves are not simply abbreviated versions of the whole''

Now talking about gaming relationships, here is a shoe that you yourself posted around a week ago!

[attachimg=2]

I found this one interesting because of how after getting at least two Bankers, the next Player was only a single for the majority of the shoe. So there is a relationship forming between different bet selections here if you are able to see it and therefore the so called 'trick' in my opinion is how do you build your framework or arrange your marking so that you can spot/anticipate these occurrences before they are over. But if you can do it, then it allows you the luxury of using positive progressions like the G3M1 for example because you can be confident that a lot of your wins will come in clumps.

Well done on your win Alrelax,

Unfortunately the Casino where I play doesn't have the F7 bet or many of the other side bets.
They only have the traditional B vs P and Tie along the with the  your Way Egalite.

On the subject of Camaraderie, I suppose it's more prevalent in Baccarat because of the fewer options compared to Roulette. However, I can remember way back to the early 90's and there was a small group where I used to play who preferred the game of Baccarat over Roulette. They always seemed quite happy and it was almost like they were having some kind of party most nights with the 'leader' of that particular group a very jovial character. One thing that stands out as well on reflection is they were more of them at the cash-out desk at 2.00am when the Casino closed than us Roulette players for the most part.

Where I play now is in the heart of Chinatown and that type of atmosphere I described above is certainly not prevalent. A lot of the gamblers seem to be younger nowadays in there 20's-30's and seem more obsessed/introverted even though a few of them are betting 100's up to a couple of thousand a hand, they don't show too much emotion. It's every man and women for themselves.

Hello Vic,

Something to think about for the forum would be some type of Baccarat Simulator.
Steve has his roulette game, however, there is nothing similar for baccarat.
It would likely attract some new members and create discussion on the game itself.
The spin-offs could be a livelier forum with some coding work for any interesting systems/strategies.

cheers

These couple of shoes from Johno (although extreme in how they group up from FTL to OLD) show how the 2nd's and 3rd's can perform well.

[attachimg=1]

[attachimg=2]

The first shoe and the 3rd's show WWWWW

Second shoe and the 3rd's show LLLLLL

Also there is a streak of 8 L's in the 2nd's First shoe and a streak of 9 L's in the 2nd's Second shoe. All great for anything using an up as you win progression. Obviously it's not always as plain sailing as that but it shows pretty much where you will do well if you choose to play around with this idea.

cheers

Quote from: 8OR9 on May 23, 2019, 10:51:45 PM
  Thanx for the update.  Below is an old post of yours ....could you give and example of how you determined the W or L for 2nd's and 3rd's......seems like all the numbers were black.

8OR9, Here is a brief example using Heads and Tails to explain the 2nd and 3rd's concept.

[attachimg=1]

The idea is that you will isolate a point in time where you can capture a group of W in either the 2nd or 3rd's on one of the E/C's.
Greiner states in his book that these are not to be categorized as patterns such as FTL for example. He says a pattern is a group of decisions and / or a bet selection method which conforms to a format. By contrast the 2nd and 3rd's identify an exact point in time within the structure of the probability mode itself. Now maybe that's just all a nice play on words because as each decision is independent, then what else are you doing apart from looking for betting a FTL decision even if that means waiting several decisions and jumping around columns.

Don't get me wrong because I am not saying this stuff can't hold up for a long time along with his use of positive progressions. Betting every hand is not an ideal situation at times IMO and so timing your bets with MM which isn't suicidal could see your bankroll go along way and I can see how a lot of my own thoughts regarding successful play were shaped by Greiner's work.

Quote from: alrelax on May 24, 2019, 01:46:04 PM
I am hurting today, about 1 and a half hour sleep.  What a session, what a great session.  And I did this last night because of the great email I got from AsymB, thank you buddy!  Those few sentences sent me out with the song I love in my mind, Burning Down The House.

Reminds me of one of my favourites along similar lines.

Quote from: 8OR9 on May 23, 2019, 01:24:57 AM
If I understand this correctly and you make it to the top row of 4  4   8 and you lose all 3 bets, you will lose 16 units which can wipe out all your previous profits.

Well it's technically correct that you could lose all three bets from the top row (4a 4b 8c) totalling 16 units, you would however have gained units along the way from all the previous rows. So in this instance you can only lose a maximum of 4 units in total playing to the end.

Worst case scenario from a total wipeout in the different rows are as follows...

row 224 = 6.
row 244 = 6.
row 336 = 6.
row 366 = 6.
row 448 = 4.

Of course you could have suffered a few -2 losses (base bet) before proceeding to play the rows.

Option 2 and the rows are as follows.

2 (base bet)
2 4 4
2 4 4
3 6 6
3 6 6
4 8 8

With this option, winning the desired net units at any given level only requires winning the 'a' or 'b' bet at anytime. So not too much different from option 1.
There is an option 3 and an option 3 (sidewall version) I will leave them for another day.

If I had to choose from any of Greiner's progressions, it would be the Boxer which I have already shared. It packs a good punch for either short streaks or close knit groups of wins. It's close to the G3M1 from Koetsch which is my favourite.

Hello Bhumibol

First bet is 2 units. After winning the initial bet, you then jump up a row and the bets then proceed from left to right (a to c) on a loss and from right to left on a win should you need to do so.
So the next row after the initial 2 unit bet is 2 2 4.
First bet would be the 2a. If you win this bet, you would then jump up to the next row which is 2 4 4.
Your first bet in this row would be the 2a. If you lost the first 2a bet in the previous row, your next bet would be the 2b.

The examples on the other thread go through some winning and losing situations and pretty much explain things.

Hope it helps.

cheers

Author's summary:

As you can see, the merits of selectively increasing both winning and losing bets are substantial. The Bricklayer's Wall is particularly good at converting choppy or zig-zag results into sizable profits without sizeable risk. It's also satisfying to know that the Bricklayer's wall will profit nicely in streaky environments as well.

Game examples:

1. -2 -2 +2 +2a -2a -4b +4c +4b -3a +3b -3a -3b -6c
2. +2 -2a -2b +4c -2b +4c +2a -3a +3b +3a -3a +6b +4a
3. +2 -2a -2b +4c -2b -4c
4. -2 -2 -2 +2 +2a -2a +4b +3a -3a -6b +6c +6b -4a -4b +8c +4b
5. +2 -2a +2b -2a -2b +4c -2b +4c +2a -3a -3b -6c
6. -2 +2 +2a +2a +3a -3a -6b +6c +6b -4a -4b +8c +4b
7. -2 -2 +2 -2a +2b +2a -2a -4b -4c
8. +2 +2a -2a +4b -3a -3b +6c +3b -3a +6b +4a
9. -2 -2 -2 +2 -2a -2b +4c -2b +4c -2a +4b +3a -3a -6b -6c
10. +2 +2a +2a -3a -3b +6c +3b -3a +6b -4a -4b +8c -4b +8c

Bets won: 59
Bets lost: 63
Units won: 30

cheers

Hello Johno

I will post up some game examples in the Bricklayer's wall thread along with the author's summary.

cheers

Thanks Ozon!

James, the Perfect Unit is part of Craig Greiner's set of progressions.
I have pretty much covered them all now in my blog. They include the Mongoose, Bricklayer's Wall and the Boxer. All up as you win progressions. Based on some of the reviews I have read around the internet, people who say they have studied them / used them / modified them claim they are more robust than some of the more traditional classic progressions.

I prefer the G3M1 myself and think Koetsch's material in general is more down to earth than Greiner's.

Your WLWLWL scenario with the G3M1 allows you to keep picking up 1 unit with the martingale element stacked on the end should you keep encountering WLW.

cheers

1st Part:

W3 W5
OR
W3 W7

then

2nd Part:

W4
L4 W3 W5
L4 W3 L5  W3 W7

So you will already recognize the 1st part as being a successful shared parlay. The 2nd part appears a lot like a shared parlay because of the possibility of a 5 and/or 7 unit bet. However, it is not treated entirely the same.

Naturally, if you win the 4 unit bet, the series (won) starts over. If the 4 unit bet is lost though, then the next bet is 3 units. If lost, the series (lost), starts over. If won, the next bet is 5 units. If the 5 unit bet is won, the series (won), starts over. If lost, the next bet is 3 unit. If the 3 unit bet is lost, the series (lost), starts over. If won, the final bet for the series is 7 units. The win/loss disposition of the series is then decided with this 7 unit bet.

The reason that the 2nd part is not like the 1st part (besides the 4 unit bet) is that (a) that the 2nd part doesn't cycle itself and (b) it doesn't affect the cycle of the 1st part. In other words, every time that you start a new series, you begin with the 3 unit first bet, and a 5 unit second bet. This clean start with the cycle allows each new series the beginning order of a 5 unit, then 7 unit bet respectively.

So let's look at some decisions to demonstrate.

1. -3 +3 -5 +3 +7 -4 +3 +5
2. -3 -3 +3 +5 -4 -3
3. -3 -3 +3 -5 +3 +7 +4
4. +3 -5 -3 +3 -7 +3 -5 -3 +3 +7 -4 +3 -5 +3 +7
5. +3 -5 +3 +7 -4 -3
6. -3 -3 +3 -5 -3 -3 -3 +3 +7 -4 +3 -5 +3 +7
7. -3 -3 +3 +5 -4 -3
8. -3 -3 -3 +3 +5 -4 +3 +5
9. -3 -3 -3 -3 +3 +5 +4
10. + 3 -5 +3 +7 -4 +3 -5 +3 -7
11. +3 +5 -4 +3 -5 -3
12. +3 -5 -3 -3 +3 +7 +4

Bets won 49
Bets lost 50
Units won 9

So this is purely an up as you win progression (bets are only increased after wins) It's easy to learn and easy to play. Just follow the examples.

cheers

The basic component of the Perfect Unit is called the Shared Parlay. To understand what a Shared Parlay is, let's review what a regular parlay is. A regular parlay is a bet where all the winnings of the first bet are added to the second bet. For example, if we won a 3 unit bet, then the parlay bet would be a 6 unit bet. As we know though, with even chance bets, we have a 50/50 chance of winning each time. As this affects a parlay, it means that once we have won the first bet, that we will only win the second bet (the parlay attempt) on average every other time. (ie. 50/50).

How this looks in play can be summarized as +3 +6 (for a net win of +9) one time, and +3 -6 +3 +6 (for a net win of +6) the other time. So the collective profit for the two ways that we are going to achieve a successful parlay is +9 +6 = +15. This demonstrates a regular parlay.

Now our objective with a shared parlay is to (A) balance the amount won by each of the two different ways, thereby giving us more uniform results over the course of our play, (B) to increase the collective profit of the two ways, and (C) reduce our risk on unsuccessful parlay attempts. The accomplishment of these objectives thereby awarding us much more winning power overall.

If we were to re-allocate the winnings used for the second bets in the parlay attempts, we can accomplish all of our objectives at the same time!

Not possible you say? Well let's do this. Let's share 1 unit of the winnings used for the second bet in our first parlay attempt, and add it to the second bet on the second parlay attempt. Now the two ways that we are going to achieve a successful parlay can be summarized like this: +3 +5 (for a net win of +8) one time, and +3 -5 +3 +7 (for a net win of +8) the other time. What were our objectives again?

(A) balance the amount won by each of the two different ways, thereby giving us more uniform results over the course of our play. (B) to increase the collective profit of the two ways, and (C) reduce our risk on unsuccessful parlay attempts.

(A) (+8 +8) with the shared parlay versus (+9 +6) with the regular parlay....mission accomplished!
(B) +16 with the shared parlay versus +15 with the regular parlay....mission accomplished!
(C) +3 -5 = -2 and +3 -5 +3 -7 = -6 / = -8 with the shared parlay versus +3 -6 = -3 and +3 -6 +3 -6 = -6 / = -9 with the regular parlay....mission accomplished!

For anybody who thinks a 1 unit gain on 15 isn't substantial, it translates to just under a 7% increase on our winnings. Not too bad when you consider the average commission on even chance games is around 2%.

So to recap....5 unit second bets are made until one is lost. Once a 5 unit second bet is lost, a 7 unit second bet is used on the next parlay attempt. Regardless of whether the 7 unit second bet is won or lost, the cycle returns to a 5 unit second bet when the next parlay attempt comes up. Obviously, neither a 5 or 7 unit second bet comes into play until a 3 unit bet is first won preceding it.

This Shared Parlay is the first part of the Perfect Unit bet. I will type up the second part in the next post.