Thanks hgwen,  I don't follow this thread with a lot of detail but your summarization helps me understand his MM.

J

Albalaha, did you post your betting scheme or is that's something you're keeping to yourself?

Thanks

LOL - He read your mind!  Good for you Victor.  I truly hope you made a good profit and continue to do so as Glen'd employee!


Jimske

Quote from: alrelax on June 16, 2019, 01:15:42 PM
Happy Father's Day to all the positive and wonderful members here. 

Do not lose hope in BetSelection, it will be positive and a great place once again real soon! 

Have a great day!  Alrelax/Glen.

Thanks Glen.  You as well.  But does this mean you apologize for keep writing stuff like the following on my chat?  (I changed the color)


Real cute!

P.S.  How does the site change the "bad" words" automatically?

Viv, The response or lack thereof is telling isn't?  Maybe you should ban Glen and me (Jimske) and see what happens.  IMO, it was a better website pre-Glen moderator and chief banner.  Since then Glen has pretty much sucked out all the oxygen in the room while not once explaining a bet selection that he prefers.

In the "old days" one could talk about NOR or O/S or any number of placement ideas to use as a springboard to success.  This while everyone agreeing that they don't work "right out of the box" but need adjustments in placement and money management.  Glen got rid of most of those people.

115 users on board today.  How many of these play regular like even once a week?  Most are likely recreational players who are looking for ideas and don't necessarily expect a holy grail.  My guess most are moderate bettors.  But you got someone like Glen doing his high roller thing bragging about winning thousands of dollars and never ending rhetoric. Yet not really giving any discernible ideas except for some thoughts on MM and discipline techniques.  All the while (if you read closely) condescending any other approach.

Vic, if you remember I said I was going to join the systems site and pay.  Then I see it's mostly about Roulette and I don't play Roulette.  Then I thought why would I bother?  Glen doesn't, Assymbac doesn't.  Sputnik and Johno about the only two that give it a go.  Others, too, before the great purge of Mr. "Been there, Done That."

I'm serious.  Ban Glen and I then see what happens.

Thanks.

Too long for me but reading the first line of every paragraph.  I agree!  And let me add if he already didn't say.  You got to have a PLAN!  A plan that encompasses all those things above!  Should make that post of Johno's a sticky.

Just because I'm a stickler:  Anthropomorphizing is a misnomer to describe peoples relationship to gambling games.  People really don't put human characteristics on the game.  Better to say humans use post hoc fallacious reasoning.  But even then do players really think that present events are caused by past events?  Nah.  They are, IMO, just guessing that some occurrence(s) will repeat enough to overcome the house edge and make a profit.  The game of Baccarat is not all that complicated.

Please someone show me and Alrelax a mathematical method to stop guessing! 

J

Quote from: Bally6354 on May 29, 2019, 04:31:46 PM
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.

First Alrelax shoe almost a "homerun" shoe for me.  So I'd say it was only a triple.  But I'm not the kind of player that tries to "pounce" on shoes.  Too many times my good wins get halved or nearly eliminated.  I'm more of a grind player.  I try not to play more than 2 or 3 shoes so I hit and run.

Johno's shoe only a double.  But I'm not complaining.  Lots of shoes don't have those kind of consistencies.  All the ones Alrelax posts do.  I guess there's no fun in posting his losing ones?

Right, the trick is building your "framework."  But the crux of the matter is looking for consistencies in the shoe.  There's a lot of things to look for and it's always a gamble whether these consistencies are going to continue or not.  The rest is MM, discipline and all that stuff that Al keeps on talking about (comraderie?  I'm not in).

Then you got Johno and Assymbac who are math and statistic guys who don't buy into this "trend" stuff.  I'd really like to see a defined selection that doesn't require all this looking around for dominant consistencies but as of yet I haven't seen anything that can produce better results than what I'm already doing.

J

Quote from: Lungyeh on May 17, 2019, 12:50:25 AM
Glen,

I appreciate and salute you for your dedicationto this forum amd its noble aims of educating baccarat players. The efforts you put in to record games played in the midst of real money betting is in itself a tremendous challenge. And the ?essays?  (and I mean this in a most respectful way) is a greateffort and sacrifice to put your experience across. By and large these experiences as you narrated are really useful guide. Of course when you narrate in the volumes you have, there probably have been instances where the message was not interpreted the way you meant it to be or there may be situations you may have inadvertently contradicted yourself but circumstances were different but not fully explained. And then critics jump on it and said ? last time you said this now you say this ...?. I can only say that your pieces have been informative and very relevant as are contributions by some others.

Stay the course Glen. I just wish those who do not agree with you treat you with more decorum. I really don't know what's their problems. But sometimes you have been abrasive yourself without provocation. But I find your articles, long winded as some of them may be, to be informative and relevant for baccarat players to stay alive on the game!! God bless

That's all well and good, Yungleh, except he contradicts himself and obfuscates on a regular basis never explaining or addressing fair questions.  It's not a matter of disagreeing when there isn't much to disagree with.  I for one, am happy to have a civil discussion or debate about specific ideas relating to the subject matter.  I think some of his stuff is well accepted - MM, discipline, his 124 progression, etc.  But let's be honest.  He never answers a question when put to him.

He says he doesn't guess and doesn't predict.  Okay, well then how does he decide to make a bet?  Never answers!  He draws lines on pics but never explains what caused him to draw the line or the future implications.  Never answers!  But he's real quick to criticize and condescend on others play, much of which he apparently imagines.


Turning points not really a new concept.  Shoes change.  Today I posted yet another question that follows.  He just deletes it.  I push back because without any explanation it's all disinformation.

"The master of obfuscation with more word salad.

I got an idea.  How about this shoe I played today?  Maybe you'd like to point out the sections and turning points as well as any other pertinent information you deem might be relevant to the punter? 
bbb pppppp bbbbb p b ppppppp bbb p bb p bbbbb p b pp b p bbb ppp b pp bbbbb p b pp b ppp bb pp b p b

Thanks."

Quote from: Lugi on April 06, 2019, 08:56:07 AM
Baccarat can be a real simple game for those betting most hands in a given shoe.  No need to complicate the game with irreverential info.

In the end you the player are either betting the same as the last hand, betting the repeat, or you are betting the opposite of the last hand. So it is either FLD or OLD.

It is worth noting, that series of 2's behaves the exact same if you the player were betting FLD or OLD. (LW or WL).

Therefore to simplify your decision making, it may be prudent to trigger off the 3rd line.  For all your rationale, it basically comes down to bet the opposite or bet the same. While trying to avoid getting done by any switch.  To give yourself a bit of leeway of being hit by a switch, you need depth in your staking plan.

Any delayed progressions will give you the player cushion.  IMO this game is and always will be more of a staking game than any attempt to guess wrong or right.  Have a decent staking plan and it doesn't matter losing 3, 4 or 5 on the bounce.

Agreed.  It's  about  betting.  Keeping it simple with proper staking plan - knowing when and how to recoup  if losing and. walking with winnings.

Betting the 3rd line only a good  idea.  Leave the singles.  Don't  need them.  Consider playing side independent with this strategy. 

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on April 04, 2019, 09:39:25 PMI like to work trying to adhere at most by a scientific approach, that is every observation/theory must produce measureable results. And, more importantly, every theory must be proved by falsification.

as.

You are the scientist, mathematician and statistician analyst.  You been working on this for how many years?  Were even going to write  book about it.  What is it that you have to report after all this time?

J

It's nice to see someone respond to Glen's post other than the same few.  More power to those who find strengths or dominant tendencies with the kind of analysis Glen attempts to outline.  Personally I find it unnecessarily complicated and confusing to try and figure out dominant naturals, 3-card draws, etc.   

Nevertheless, absent a fixed bet selection which can win more hands than lose OR reduce LIAR we're going to find ourselves placing bets on perceived dominant "presentments."   Whether we see that bias in terms of card draw denominations or run lengths, patterns, etc. makes little difference.

Sure, it's not easy but simpler is better in my book.  Keeping alert, staying focused, having a plan and sticking to it both on the winning and losing side is the key to success.

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on March 28, 2019, 04:05:39 AM
At least when I'm sober and focused :-)

as.

Were you sober when you wrote that?  Are you calling your bud a bighornshit loser lyin' coksuker?   Because he doesn't believe any of that since he plays many hands a shoe and does raise his bet.

Quick shoe yesterday:

L WWW L W L W LL WW LLL WW LL W LL WWWWWW L W LLL WWW L WWWW LLLL WWW L W L W L WW     

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on March 26, 2019, 04:02:12 AMMany shoes are not playable at all just for the reasons Al outlined in his several posts.

I guess I missed anything Glen wrote about unplayable shoes.  Maybe you could opine on the subject and present an example "unplayable" shoe?  Thanks.

J




















[/quote]

Quote from: alrelax on March 26, 2019, 03:22:37 AM
Absolutely spot on, no matter which way you think or desire.

I know in that shoe I posted last night of 23 or so players against he 2 Bankers out there in the very beginning of the shoe, winning large money compared to a relatively small buy in, that if I continued playing, most of it--if not all of it would have gone back to the casino.

The two of you crack me up!  I mean you and John, Glen.  No matter what either of you say the other pats you on the back and says "spot on."  Yet one says the math and computer sim is hogwash and bets many hands based on past history while the other insists flat betting few hands based on mathematical edge is the only way to win!  There are no two players that couldn't play more opposite than you two.

But to your last statement quoted above, Glen.  NONSENSE!  We can just as easily got even more wins.  Quitting while ahead always prudent psychology but in no way increases the probability of losing.  I do but many times regret it.  Here's a good example from today:

WWWW L WWW LLLL WWW L W LL W L WW L W LL W L WWWWWWWWWW L  and quit +45 units.  The interesting thing was the last 12 hands went pp BB pp BB pp BBB and quit losing to the 3 B.  But the rest of the shoe finished with:pp BBB pp BBBB pp B pppp.

Hadn't been a singleton last 14 hands or so!  Just betting for the dom 2nd line would have reaped more wins.  Shi.t.  Probably would have made another 5-10 units.  It happens.  Long dragon can come anytime.

FYI.   Next shoe went L W L WWWWW LLLLL WWWWWWW LL WWWW L QUIT  +27 units. (made some mistakes on that 5 LIAR given the history.)grrrrr