Quote from: alrelax on March 07, 2018, 02:05:23 PM
"So IF we take Mikes assumption that after 3 losses somehow mr. edge waits around the corner and ADD this statement here, it seems to me, it needs one or two bits more than just wait for 3 losses to start betting":

It needs a huge amount more!  It does not work that way in the casino.  People try all the time.

The people mix reality with fallacy and dreams all while they are in the wrong, 'frame-of-mind'.

I have literally seen well established, smart, long time players at baccarat lose 6 to 12 hands repeatedly.  True they do not have to wager but their ego-mood-bank roll-past experiences and much more----all comes into play.  On top of it all people do not take very lightly to buying in with $10,000.00 or much more and than losing it.  I watched a female baccarat player last week actually point to the board at midway and verbally cite, "Look it has never went past 4 repeats for both banker and player".  It was at hand 43.  I told her, please understand things change and very seldom does the board hold true the whole shoe, 80 hands.  She wagers table max in 4 spots, which was $8,000.00 for the cut to the players side and 4 more bankers came out.  The time to do what she did was when it was happening in the sections that already prevailed.  But, people look for what they convince themselves are 'solid' and 'great' wagers to make and then bet on them.  That is why the casinos put those boards there, that is why they provide pens and score cards, they want you to do that.  Simple, no?  I have written about it all and many people will not truly understand or believe me, because  they have not been in a real casino or their exposure to a real casino is not very much.

I truly think it takes longer than 10 years of casino play to even start to understand the casino, the game, and yourself.  But hey--I might be totally wrong!  I don't know.

I never followed this thread much - until the other day with nothing else to do I began reading when I came across the above. I'll be honest, I had to chuckle when I got to the anecdote about the lady who lost 4IAR betting against.  Al is right, shoes seldom maintain a "signature."  IMO, the only mistakes the lady made were continuing after the first loss and after losing the first bet she already was at table max so she had no where to go to do more than break even if she won the 2nd hand.  But that's not what cracked me up.

What cracked me up was this statement by Al: "The time to do what she did was when it was happening in the sections that already prevailed." Huh?  So IOW as soon as you see a 4 IAR go once or maybe twice it is more likely to be a winner next time? Or the longer a "presentment" continues the less likely it is to go further?

So I guess the lesson is, PLAY THE HISTORY but play it sooner than later.

Thanks for the explanation.  Sometimes concepts difficult to understand without examples.  I'll take a look.  Hopefully other system players will comment.

I don't get it. Can you please explain it more thoroughly? Thanks.

Some minor health issues have kept me up here in the cold this winter.  But the silver lining is that I've been pouring over different ideas.  This thread has been thought provoking and has allowed me to look at a whole different perspective.  But more on that later.

Start with Assym advocating betting VERY few hands.  How many on average I'm not sure but he does suggest that some shoes are not playable.  This means visual inspection and visual inspection means looking for certain outcomes to decide if the shoe is worth placing a couple bets.  Somewhere back there Assym suggested betting B after a previous P single or double.  I showed the results on two of Alrelax shoes as examples.  But after looking through my "test" data of 50 shoes it appears that it doesn't work too well unless one looks for certain "patterns" or outcomes.  It works better if you look for sections of a shoe that has 1's and 2's - then make the bets he describes.  His comments about groups of singles seem to corroborate my assumptions.  Maybe Assym will opine on that theory?

However, for me that would be a tiresome way to play.  Particularly because where I play there are no back betting, the tables are full and many don't have screens.  But the whole thing got me thinking about patterns and groups.

Then Alrelax enters the conversation and "seems" to agree with Assym.  But, Al plays way more hands than Assym suggests and he uses Turning Points to change bet placement.  Looking for changes in the shoe is nothing new.  Defining them and exploiting them for profit a whole other problem.  I'll move over to Al's thread for further comments.

J

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on February 18, 2019, 02:44:56 AM
Imo to win at baccarat itlr, our plan must be considered in cycles adhering at most by taking into account just two steps:

1-  winning the first hand wagered is of outmost importance;
2- winning the second hand whether the first was lost.

This simple two step wagers plan considered by cycles must have each a higher 75% of success.

When it happens to be wrong at both opportunities, we need to be very careful to place more bets as strong negative variance is going to come out more often than we think.
Thus waiting to get a fictional positive outcome is not sufficient to restart the betting.

The reason is that baccarat is very similar to a coin flip endless proposition, therefore WW, WL, LW and LL sequences are presenting whimsically but itlr they'll be equal.

We cannot guess the lenght of the streaks, therefore we should simplify the problem by considering columns as singled or streaky (any streak).

Good way to minimize no. of bets.  I haven't done the math but the average of repeat "groups" and singleton "groups"(1 or more) is about 2:1 in favor of repeat.

Quote
It doesn't matter what strategy we like to adopt, what really counts is whether how many times we'll win the first or the second hand (really or fictionally), then classifying the results.

Right, but when considering a strategy of betting on these groups it's probably more favorable to bet on the repeat group.  Particularly since part of the singleton group includes a solitary singleton which occurs about half the time.

Quote

Since any bac shoe is a finite limited model, we know that more often than not a losing series won't be balanced by a perfect counterpart and the same is true taken in the opposite direction.

I mean that some shoes cannot be played at all as we do not want to find us in the position to guess the opposite of what our plan is dictating.

In a word, we'll be in a far better shape not playing certain shoes not fitting our plan at the start than trying to follow the actual shoe or, even worse, trying to hope to get balanced outcomes that have no room to show up.

Professional players like to bet a lot on very few spots and they never want to chase previous losses and it's not a coincidence that they'll stop the betting after two consecutive losses.

as.

How do we bet just a few hands or pick shoes and get the best of it?  I don't know what Assym has in mind about this but looking at the repeat dominance on a side to side basis might give some clues.

Kind of stimulating.

Great topic Glen, I have to pat you on the back with the fantastic insight!!!!!

Quote from: Gizmotron on January 26, 2019, 07:54:16 PM

My response already was: "I don't disagree with any of this."


To be quite clear I'll state it again. I agree completely.

OK, my bad.  I was under the impression you had a prediction method.

Quote from: Lungyeh on January 25, 2019, 03:39:49 AM
Whether FTL or OTL, there will be times when each of the methods work like a dream and times when you will be taken to the slaughterhouse.

To my mind therefore, in this random game with periods of non random trends, the key to winning is in the Loss Management of your visit. Everybody wins at some point. When they start losing, they have to enforce strict discipline of Loss Management because the losses creep up on you. Win one lose two. Win two lose two. Win two lose three. Win one lose two. And soon the winnings and the capital are together decimated. Gizmo despite his professions of his ability to keep track of win/loss had his failings at this precise situation. Perhaps he has improved on it.  But in any case, my moot point is that Loss Management is the key. Not bet selection. But feel free to disagree.

It appears that the only regular posters that would disagree are Asym and Giz.

okay.  I'll plug my method for 4 mos access.  :-)

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on December 18, 2018, 11:59:58 PM
After years of studying baccarat I've come to the conclusion that the only way to win at this game is by properly assessing the number and distribution of BP shifts per each shoe.

Each shoe features an average probability to get this or that, first we should restrict the number of such this and that.

We cannot care less about long streaks, they are the best way amateurs try to get a profit by.
Long streaks or homogeneous patterns or predominance factors are just post hoc findings.
They will come at the right time or not.
As players we are compelled to restrict the "right time" within "now" or "very shortly" terms. A thing that the random world is laughing at.

Baccarat shifts move more from P to B than from B to P but itlr (and intermediate terms too) the number of BP shifts is equal, actually is slightly oriented to get more shifts than a perfect 50/50 proposition dictates.
Such conclusion came from testing millions of shoes.

We know that in a 50/50 perfect proposition itlr the number of singles and doubles will be very close to 75%.
Of course B singles and B doubles itlr will get a lesser amount than 75% compensated by the P outcomes.

How do you figure if singles = 18 and doubles (9 per shoe) = 18.  That's 36 or 50%. 

I can't see why I would pay to join as I already have many systems.  None of which I play. 

Waves!

Quote from: Sputnik on November 29, 2018, 09:21:14 AM
Jimske you have to understand that I have not developed or made a weighted count system, I only show examples of regression.
I want to explore this territory and see if I can create a weighted count system and share it.
But nothing is complete or under construction.

Cheers

I know.  Just using that as an example.  In BJ we can identify SD by keeping track of cards to get upwards of a 2% advantage.  And depending on the rules we only get a pos EV something like 8 hands per 100.  Assymbac has suggested we can get a positive EV based on certain card depletion which will cause a third card draw and give us an advantage.  If so I'm guessing that the advantage will be far less than in BJ.

OTH, looking at patterns or series seems like a good way to identify future outcomes through SD.  But it seems to me getting an advantage within one shoe an impossible task.

I've always wondered if an individual shoe bias can be correlated with the texture of the cards.  So, for instance instead of individual P and B outcomes we may find greater abundance on one side based on card depletion.  ??

J

sidebar:  looks like I'm prohibited from posting on the other site.  Can't even contact admin.  Says:
"(You have insufficient privileges to reply here.)"  Anybody else having same problem?

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on November 28, 2018, 02:31:46 AM
For example, we know for sure that somewhere banker will produce a streak or a given amount of streaks. There's no way that a given shoe will produce just one B streak, but we surely know that very rare given shoes won't produce a P single.
The answer is easy: streaks consume a well more room than singles but B side is more prone to produce streaks as it's more likely to happen.

Right, very rare.  But lesser productions of P single not so rare and is why I use the 1's as a key to help determine the bias.  We can use a bet placement that exploits this.  Any positive expectation (weighted count, regression to mean, etc.) has escaped me.  Enter the "educated" guess.

QuoteSay we want to bet a very complicated and hyper selected strategic plan oriented to lose only when a shoe won't present a P single AND at least two B streaks.
We won't lose by 1 billion accuracy.

Assuming you or anyone has identified such it no doubt requires a potential long wait.  Waiting even for Sputnik's Ecart still produces the problem with variance due to the low odds.  We'd have to be in the neighborhood of 75%+ prediction to make it practical.

Do you disagree?

Quote from: alrelax on November 12, 2018, 04:55:13 PM
Thanks for the broken down responses/answers.

It is clear.

Yes, I do agree with you regarding the two 'areas' as you defined.

From my aspect of Member, B&M Casino Player and Moderator here at BetSelection.

The way I understand the new "systems" site you're not going to have much input into it Alrelax.