Quote from: Blue_Angel on May 26, 2018, 02:21:44 PM

Hey Garry, what's up?
Warming up the chair for me?


It would be a pity not to address your inquiry properly, but since you've posted that your selection is doing well for thousands of bets, then why don't you make the start by explaining about your selection criteria?
By doing so others would be encouraged to step forth and fulfill your request, what do you think?

Gary, please clarify.  Are you proposing that a defined selection can overcome the EV?

My perspective is that no defined bet selection will overcome the EV.  This is not to say we shouldn't use bet selections, just that we must understand their flaws and adjust for them.

J

Quote from: Gizmotron on May 25, 2018, 12:44:39 PM

Yep, that is a very steep dive into shallow water. It happens to me about 20% of the time when I start to play money. I've also opened with a massive win streak before too. I even experienced a four day repeating characteristic of the same 18 numbers dominating all day play. It all goes to bet big when you are doing good and bet small when you are doing bad.


But it looks like you played through it flat betting.

No, I don't flat bet.

QuoteYou control when to stop. You can stop at a point that is near breaking even instead of at the killer point of 4 wins to 15 losses. You can play to negate downturns as an edge. Selecting the stop point is an edge, I think.

Right. We can speed up, slow down, stop, but we just can't back up.  The trick is learning when.  Fortunately it's fairly forgiving due to the low negative expectation.  For those who cannot grasp why we can't back up; the simple reason is we cannot recoup lossses by winning the small bets and losing the big ones.

Quote from: Blue_Angel on May 25, 2018, 05:21:29 PM

Expecting the effect of "law of large numbers" is just an expectation, if it wasn't then variance wouldn't be unpredictable.
If we really knew that as a fact and not as an expectation then we could create a long term money management which would generate profit as the results will get closer to the mean expectation.
So by using more results rather than a few would we guaranteed that the results would always conform to the theoretical mean?!
What forces and obligates variance to act so?! NOTHING!

LOL.  Thanks.  Now I don't have to bother with this question.

Mike: "Are you betting a roughly equal mix of banker/player?"  I don't keep track of that but my guess is yes.

Quote from: Jimske on May 24, 2018, 09:22:41 PMLLL W LLLLL W LLLL W LLLL  Ouch!  Only won 4 out of first 49 hands!.

oooops!  4 of 19 not 49.

Quote from: Jimske on May 24, 2018, 09:22:41 PMLLL W LLLLL W LLLL W LLLL  Ouch!  Only won 4 out of first 49 hands!.

oooops!  4 of 19 not 49.

Quote from: Mike on May 25, 2018, 07:31:40 AM
Jimske,
It could still be a fluke though, because the number of hands played is relatively small.

Of course.  I always expect to return to the law of large numbers.

Quote from: Xander on May 22, 2018, 08:55:19 PM
I don't know of the site.  I wouldn't pay a dime to visit it either.

Like it or not, though, the math doesn't lie.  I find that the people that disagree do so because they don't comprehend the effects of variance.   Variance isn't something that you can avoid with gaming discipline.  It just is what it is, "luck."  Variance is accurately described mathematically, and when you have the edge, it's nothing more than an annoyance at best.

You obviously don't play and it's good that you don't.  Quite correct, cannot avoid variance.  But there is two aspects to it.  One is short term and the other long term.   Here is a bit of short term variance from couple days ago:  LLL W LLLLL W LLLL W LLLL  Ouch!  Only won 4 out of first 49 hands!.  Well that just means the casino owes me some wins.  When you're down that low you generally will come back a good bit to at least 45% but if yo just get back to the expected EV you're gonna recoup.  It took another 100 hands to get back up but it did prove to be profitable at a net of $420.00 with no higher than $50.00 bet.  I had a profit as soon as I hit 49%.   Fortunately the VARIANCE goes both ways!

I chose that session because it has such a low swing.  That's unusual but it does happen oon occasion.

Quote from: Gizmotron on May 23, 2018, 12:19:21 PM
So yesterday I built a sim that allows me to take the above single hot number progression to test. It stops at the end of each step to allow me to select a new hottest number if I want to change to one. It has a chart to show what numbers are doing well as you go along. I broke down the first 35 spins to 12, 12, and 11 without changing the $5 value. So it acts just like you would act if you were playing at a real casino. After each win it reverts back to the starting point of $5.


It's interesting too. If I change numbers to what I think might be the hottest number, or most recent hottest number, I tend to win. If I just select a number randomly and stick with it, I usually get killed. Funny how it represents proof that you can read randomness and do better than if you just use blind statistics to prove ignorance. I guess it's unfortunate that such knowledge exists. Still, I prefer JP's "Up & Pull" MM tactics with just two net wins on even chance bets. Done by a randomness expert that JP method almost never losses. There are so many wins that the occasional losing session is just a small feature that can easily be lived with.

Yeah, pretty interesting that "hot" numbers do better than simply mindless guessing.  One would think that & wins would come out to the EV but they don't.  I do much worse when experimenting with wagers without structure.  I don't do it but have actually practiced it live.  NG!!

OTH, using a structured bet placement based on bias I have found win % consistently higher.  I'm talking Baccarat of course.  Last year, prior to my 10 month away I was tabulating all wagers and have continued since I've been back.  To date  2,538 wagers with 53.94% strike rate.  Again, all live wagers.

So I was curious if you have come up with a strike rate for your method and, if so, how it compares.

J

Personally, Lugi, I wouldn't bet against the dominant bias in the shoe. If the shoe was not consistent with my placement which means I'd be losing I would back off and try to slowly recoup some losses with conservative betting.  It's not so hard to recoup from small losses. But it's going to require good guessing and proper betting techniques as well as stuff that Lung mentioned.

Can we please once and for all agree that Mike is correct and that this is essentially a guessing game?  Sure, it's better to play sober okay?  We get that.

John didn't say this was the holy trail.  He gave a starting point, a benchmark.  He outlined the nemesis.  Where does it go from there?  Maybe this should be the discussion?

Don't like his idea?  Make your own thread.

Looks good Assym.  One reason, as you point out, is the common occurrences of 1's and 2's - representing 50% of decisions.  By my way of thinking it is good to have a benchmark, a starting plan.  That way there is structure, something that can be explained.  You recognize there needs to be adjustments, fictional bets, MM, whatever.

Quote from: Nickmsi on March 08, 2018, 12:53:50 PM
Hi BW, I am happy to explain 2 Spin Bet Selection further.

Basically what 2 spin bet selection can do is:

1.   Allows more streaks to be bet on
2.   Allows more precise entry point to start betting
3.   Allows longer streaks to be bet on

A SINGLE SPIN (or hand for baccarat fans) produces 2 results:

R
B

1.   You only have 2 streaks to bet on, either R or B.
2.   The biggest problem with single spin is that you don't know when to enter the     streak?  Does a streak of Red start with the first R, the second or third?
3.   The streaks usually last about 10-15 bets.

A 2 SPIN bet selection produces 4 results:

RR
BB
RB
BR

1.   You now have 4 Streaks to bet on.
2.   You start betting against the longest sleeping couplet.
3.   Streaks last for about 20-30 bets.

The easiest way to see what a 2 spin bet selection can do is to play around with the attached Excel sheet.  This sheet tracks the sleeping couplets and shows you what to bet on.

It also shows a graph of each 1,000 spins so you can see how stable a flat betting EC can be. Simply press F9 to see another 1,000 spin RNG result.

This is not a holy grail but it is one way to handle Random and Streaks.

Enjoy
Nick

This looks a lot like (or exactly like) "Pairs" by I forget who.  You can bet the sleeping pair OR the dominant pair OR the pair that looks llike it is catching up.

Looks like I came back just in time to say "adios" to Gizmo!

I been away.  Checked in from time to time but just got back home after a long cruse on my sailboat that started last June.  Left it in Florida.

But I been thinking about Bacc.  Played today for first time in months.  But I was thinking about this site and the main problem, IMO, is lack of focus and lack of sharing.  I'll take the last one first since it is a good segue in response.

This whole idea that people have winning knowledge that they won't share . . . .  Why bother even mentioning it?  Ego?  Vanity?  Gizmo, you're going to share it with your friends or relatives if you have any.  That's normal enough.  Maybe you just secretly want to sell it and are fishing for bites.  Can't blame people for wondering about your motivation.  What was your objective for being here for 12 years?  So god bless - keep winning and we'll see you around

So this segues to my first point about focus.  Everyone knows there is no mechanical, rule based betting and placement method that gives an acceptable win rate to make it worthwhile to play.  There is only methods or perspectives.  All which require some kind of MM, discipline, guessing whatever you want to call it. 

Lots of people have good ideas, approaches to the game.  Maybe those who do could have a separate thread and include anyone who wants to discourse about that particular approach.  You could even set up members only and do gotomeeting practice sessions.

The idea that everyone is afraid to share kind of sucks.

Are you guys ignoring COMMISSION?  I think you are.  So a break even shoe is a losing shoe!  I'm getting tire dof bringing this up.