Re: Gizmotron
I don't know him /never played with him. He has alot of fine posts, IMO.

I've reviewed many of his posts. However, since I have never focused as much time on roulette (vs Bac) I didn't take the time to discuss with him.
He is vague on some of his approach (Maybe on purpose as many + players choose not to embellish 100% of the recipe to their "secret sauce"). However, he offers enough that one can still glean some of his approach. Just my opinion.

I play Bac(and a little roulette) with an octogenarion that is probably the only person I know that has successfully made a living playing roulette. He knows Gizmo and communicated with him in the past. He has played with him and knows one of his family members. He has said "gizmo knows some stuff" about roulette and considers his writings helpful.

Personally, I am not 100% clear on exactly how Gizmo plays but find his posts worthy of further study.


Continued Success,

Hi AsymBacGuy. re: post#1128 above:

"...Thus if we bet toward + after a first + appearance or toward + after a single -, only a sequence as +-- or --+- will get us losers two times in a row; and of course longer than this successions will prolong such losing streak as +--+- or --+--...."

    As a side note: I think its also advantageous to only make "two swipes" against an events' continuance. IMO it is a SBS(Superior Bac Strategy) for one to limit how many times we chase something. We obviously want the "two swipes" to have the laws of probability on our side(at least theoretically).

I prefer a trigger-to-stop(TTS) be set at two steps. My preference is to make the two attempts slightly different(e.g., $240,250; or in other words X, X._") as I don't see any benefit to wagering the exact same $ on any two consecutive wagers.
Regardless if pospro or negpro or winning or losing. A slight difference can help offset the H.E.(or enhance ours), yet won't significantly add to ones buyin volatility.

and:


"...Given the shortness of derived patterns, it's obvious that a single pair of - signs happening in a shoe means that the shoe won't be a final winning shoe.
Since winning shoes are more frequent than losing ones, in some sense is like that the actual card distribution must be particularly full of + signs at the very start of it to get an advantage. .."

    I like the BOLD above,

Continued Success

It looks like AC Brick/Mortar cas win in June 2024 was up 1 percent compared with June 2023.

??Could AC be making a comeback??? LOL.

Unfortunately for most of AC they are simply doing the TunicaTwoStep. Both gambling locations have an uphill battle IMO.

Re: AC, too much competition from the NY et al east coast casinos. Historically poor management/ not protecting market share.

Re: Tunica, similar problems with competition from Indian casinos in Oklahoma and recent legislation permitting cas in nearby Arkansas.

Just my opinions and I wish them well as I dislike seeing any business go under. Even when it is partially self induced.
_____________________________________________________________
AC June, 2024

Table and slot win:

Bally's up 9 pct compared to 6/23
Borgata up 6.2 pct compared to 6/23
Caesars down 11.1 pct compared to 6/23
GN up 5.9 pct compared to 6/23
Hard Rock up 11.8 pct compared to 6/23
Harrah's down 15.5 pct compared to 6/23
Ocean down 4 pct compared to 6/23
Resorts down 2 pct compared to 6/23
Trop down 4 pct compared to 6/23

Ranked in order of table/slot revenue, June 2024, millions: Borg (64.3), HR (48.4), Ocean (33.5), Trop (20.2), Caesars (19), Harrah's (17.7), Resorts (14.9), Bally's (13.5), GN (12.5)

Internet gaming revenue: 6/24 (186.8 mill), 6/23 (149.3 mill)
NJ sports betting revenue: 6/24 (60.1 mill), 6/23 (66.3 mill)




Continued Success To All,

Hi AsymBacGuy

Asym above in post#1126:

"...My guess is that by introducing those side bets, casinos have transformed a kind of coin flip low edge game into a more appealing constant chase right on those "unlikely" bets that could guarantee huge returns.
Especially when players are losing, so mathematically aggravating the losses.

It's not a coincidence that Vegas HS rooms do not offer EZ tables where the vast majority of bets is payed 1:1, probably knowing that it'll be very unlikely that tourists are willing to bet the F-7 wager as being too rare to happen.
In any instance at EZ tables the HE is 1.01%/1.24% and 7.6%, whereas at Tiger/Lucky 6 tables (very common at HS rooms) HE is 1.46%/1.24% and 14% plus...."



]by introducing those side bets, casinos have transformed a kind of coin flip low edge game into a more appealing constant chase right on those "unlikely" bets that could guarantee huge returns.
[/b]
    Its my opinion the casinos' main MO is to induce hedging(Not just in Bac). In most all games this is detrimental to the players success. At least I am not aware of any "long-term" advantage from hedging(Maybe short-term buyin preservation I guess). Yet I see players every day at the Bac tables doing so on most of their bets.

Other than sports betting(Arbitrage potential) any type of hedging or partial hedging is not recommended. But even in sports betting if one can consistently pick an EV+ wager to utilize with the arbitrage. Then one would be better off to simply wager on that EV+ bet.




Continued Success,

Caesar's announced a few days ago that they have reached an agreement to sell the WSOP brand to NSUS group owners of GG Poker for $500 million. Caesar's retains the right to host the WSOP for 20 years at their casinos.

Any thoughts??

https://newsroom.caesars.com/press-releases/press-release-details/2024/Caesars-Entertainment-Agrees-to-Sell-World-Series-of-Poker-Brand-to-NSUS-Group-for-US500-million/default.aspx?utm_source=awin&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_campaign=AM_brand&utm_term=771467-Shoreline+Design&sv1=affiliate&sv_campaign_id=771467&awc=6145_1722650946_2835d31d7ccc3424160fb12022d65c40&utm_content=publisherLink

Hi AsymBacGuy
Asyms statement in post#1113 above:

"..The main problem of EZ tables is that a diluted hyper selective strategy cannot afford to get a "push" on F-7 Banker winning spots, thus enticing us to bet the F-7 side bet burdened by a bad 7.6% HE (even though such bet covering the main bet should be 1/40).  ..."

I could not have stated it better.
Many years ago shen I first started my Bac journey I wrote down all the drawing rules for bac "line-by-line". Then I wrote down all the bonus bets( line-by-line) and what formations were needed to form said winning wagers. I wondered how the inventor came up with these new bonus bets for this new layout. I wondered if some formations were more complex than others. Also, how did the inventor convince the casinos this was a superior layout for THEM(I think most know how they(Cas) were convinced).

How did the "more probable" events affect the now "less probable" events. Also, vice versa,...etc.
Then I unraveled each bonus bet and asked myself: Why would the casino offer such bets.
More importantly I pondered: When these bonus bets were MORE probable what exactly MUST be less probable??Also, vice versa.
?Did the probability of the aforementioned bonus bets have any effect on the traditionally offered wagers(B or P or T) probabilities.?
? Did the probability of all events remain static throughout a shoe or did certain events temporarily alter probability for seemingly unrelated events.

I know the above exercise may seem overly simplistic and elementary. However, it offered some insight as to when certain events (&wagers) were to be put on sabbatical(At least temporarily).

Good luck to all,

Asym above:

"...3- Most of the times third(s) card favors the already higher point, here the ideal points would be when the third(s) card always make a ZERO impact over the final outcome or to repeatedly help the same underdog side.
Whenever the card distribution seems to be so polarized to help consecutively the underdog side, we'd better forget the 2 factor.
Conversely, more emphasis must be given to the side not being sensibly affected for long by the third card impact...."


The part in bold is a good item to monitor.

alrelax:
"...My friend is there right now, he wagered $1,500 on first, full parlay on second, full parlay on third and then pulled down 6 times $6,000 wagers.  Lost the last one to the Natural 9 players win.  So he won $36k...."

    I like your friends full parlays early in the W streak. Its my belief if one chooses to do a pospro one must press early /often. The compounding on say hits number 4th,5th,6th,..10th,....etc is a direct function of what was compounded between wager#1 and wager#2.

??What was your friends buyin for the $1500 base unit??

Hi Asym
In post #1103 above you say(and I agree) :

"...Note: 2CIP must be intended as the "higher" 2CIP falling at one side (H2CIP), obviuosly this is a symmetrical (but slight dependent) probability.

But clustered or isolated H2CIP situations are more affected by the actual card distribution, subtly privileging the opposite side which won the last hand...."

    Q wouldn't this favor P as P would prefer NOT to draw a third card since then B may be allowed to exercise its option(i.e., to draw or not to draw). E.G. lets say there are more 8/9 cards remaining and we see BPB_ , wager P??.

Thoughts?

   

   

Thx Asym for answering my questions up above.


Also, Asym in post #1095 above:

"...I mean that a 2-3-xxxx-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2 sequence remains a strong unlikely ratio shifted towards isolated patterns and not towards clustered patterns. Is=1 and Cl=1.
Therefore after this sequence we'll expect more 2s clustered than isolated 2s, even though the current 2/3 ratio is 9/1.
Of course we can't know about the precise lenght of those clustered events, just about that they must catch up a "quality" factor.
The same tool applies to the isolated events whenever the Is/Cl ratio is strongly or moderately shifted towards the right clustered side. (Meaning that now we'll expect more isolated events than clustered events)...."

    I agree 100% as most any event(simple or complex) that is heavily clumped will soon appear with longer gaps in between. Vice versa as well.

I also think we can assert the same claim for many other types of events: (e.g., Events occurring in-a-row will seldom continue and we should anticipate something different). 
What I mean is that we should not expect an 8-Deck shoe to present a certain event from beginning to end.
Its my opinion that at least part of the reason is the constant shifting between 4-5-6 cards per hand. Coupled with the fact cards are removed after only one use. So there is competition between other events wanting to show based on their own respective probability as well.



Cheers,

This is how I shoot my Sig Sauer P365 .


When I first saw this I thought it may be forum member ADulay.


https://youtu.be/oPJyDaY8j9o

Thanks Asym for explaining further. As always I appreciate your time.

"...Therefore we we amplify the number of hands constituting a pattern, things seem (actually do) to take the opposite direction of long term distribution. (doubles<longer streaks)..."


Do you look at longer-handed patterns being more predictive or able to project with a greater hit rate. If so what is the optimal pattern length for better accuracy predicting that very next outcome.

For example: When comparing consecutive-hand patterns  of 3,5,7. Lets say PPBx, PPBPPx, PPBPPBPx (The pattern I chose for example isn't significant, just trying to clarify what Im asking).

?? Which length or other lengths do you focus on as being more superior?

Thx again.

Hi Asym. Good article.

"...3a- A or B coming out as clustered more than one time (AAA > AAB and BBB > BBA)..."

So to clarify are u saying that: PPP has a greater prob of showing >1 time vs PPB prob of showing >1 time in any one shoe.

"OR"

Are u saying PPP will show more often on average vs PPB ??

Maybe Im not clear(or wrong) as I thought PPB showed more often vs PPP (In part because it "ppb" could be part of a longer more complex string).


Please explain further. Thx in advance kfb

Good paragraph Asym,

"..."Each pattern or classes of patterns will fight against an opposite scenario, whenever something didn't happen so far, well, we simply assume it doesn't exist."


Similar logic seems to apply with roulette as well(i.e., An individual # is longlost# and then appears for first time,...etc.).


Continued Success,

Good links 8OR9

I think there are some opportunities with arbitrage betting. However, one would need to lay the groundwork first (set up multiple accounts with several books). Maybe have several friends set up some accounts too.

My state of residence doesn't allow sports betting so haven't considered it seriously. I was recently in Colorado and was contemplating how one could take advantage of "new customer" bonus offer I had received. MGM and caesars offered me a single $1000 bet (Loss rebate) since I had never opened an online account with them. Of course my first thought was to hedge each side. So I perused the fine print and that was one of the main rules(no arbitrage or hedging). So that nixed my gameplan.

If one wants to risk alot(with 0% probability to lose) then arbitrage offers a better opportunity IMO. Obviously a big grind but if one can find an arbitrage situation everyday then compounding is your best friend.

Example:

Plan A)
Lets say I can find small hedges about every day. One book maybe -105 opposite side +110 another book. That's 1.2% ROI.

At a 1.2% daily ROI and a beginning bankroll of $5,000 after a year bankroll would be over $320,000. And no risk.

Plan (B)

I've done well in the past with NFL futures (One must bet the futures immediately after they come out). Then place bets throughout the upcoming months as the futures change(or wager other sides if your team makes playoffs and that first wager now has more value). The only problem is ones money can be tied up for months for maybe a 6-10% ROI. I usually only wagered 7 futures bets(At same wager amount)  and hoped one hit.

*Addendum thought: If one can pick bets at EV+ then why dilute return with arb or hedge.

I would prefer plan (A) above.


Just quicknrandom thoughts as Im certainly not a veteran sports bettor.


Continued Success,