Interesting question asym /alrelax

alrelax:
"First of all, unlike many others, I rarely wager against another player because he is losing, etc.  I do know numerous (a lot) of players do exactly that."

I don't recall ever wagering against a player because he was losing. Though occasionally I have suspected that a player was wagering anti-kfb because I was losing. It wouldn't bother me if that occurred.
Nor do I wager with a player because he or she is winning. If Im at a table with a known player that I consider a veteran and student of the game(In other words I value their opinion), then I may glance at their bet selection and wager size/that wager size in proportion to their typical size,...etc. Especially if I was prepping to wager large and their selection was contrary. I may ask them: What are you thinking or how strong do you feel,...etc. Though I wouldn't switch I may consider their contrarian opinion as a nudge that maybe I shouldn't feel that strongly for my selection. But for the most part their selection would only have minimal effect on my selection.

alrelax:
"..Second, I rather play at a table with numerous other players for camaraderie purposes.  I have won a heck of a lot more than I would have, by engaging in strong  camaraderie with others.  As far as losing while engaging in camaraderie, so what, you risk your money with no guarantees anyway..."

I'm ok with camaraderie as long as the others are serious players or known from previous sharing-of-the tables. I'm not enthused when the "others" are recreational type or inebriated and or buyin with $112 dollars at a $50-2K game, in the middle of the deal, and then start telling everyone how to win and how much they have won, and start pointing to invisible patterns on the tote board,...etc. 

My preference is >2<=4 other players. Most of my tables do not allow free hands and I am often the first player at the first table to open in the afternoon. If >=4-7 players, then it takes longer between hands. That coupled with a larger group of say 6-7 at table along with 3-4 back bettors and too many buy ins/change, ...etc. Which is the reason I try to avoid playing fri/sat nights. So, IMO three maybe four players are just right for me.


Third, being the only player at a table, is extremely stressful to myself as I do not desire to engage in every hand.


I agree 100%.



Continued Success,

As an addendum thought to the above post by 8OR9  on 3/8 above.

Crypto shaken as SVB exposure depegs $37 billion


Read more at:
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/markets/cryptocurrency/crypto-shaken-as-svb-exposure-depegs-37-billion-stablecoin/articleshow/98576221.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

 

My thoughts:
It will be interesting to see the effects on Cryptos after the SVB default on 3/8. Much of the fail out or (bailout) will depend on the USA Feds and if they choose to bailout the depositors. I guess we will know Monday morning.
Knowing the USA federal reserves' history (post -2008 crash) they will likely bail them out instead of letting them fall. That would likely help stabilize the markets (including cryptos), but not a good decision to always bail out poorly run/managed corporate and large mega businesses. Individuals and small businesses do not get bailed out. Just my opinion. kfb

Thx albalaha

"...We all know that a single dozen could remain sleeper for even 40 spins and could reach hit rate of even 6/60, trying that is not wise. Maybe it helps someone playing safer...."


Interesting observation/thx


Continued Success,

Hi alrelax

Good post/ session details.

re: "...After that second time, I was like, this isn't going anywhere.  I wagered bankers side but no F7 wager.  The other guy playing is back on banker and max F7 wager.  Dealer deals.  Players have an 8 and a 2.  Bankers have 2 face cards.  Players third card is a 6.  Bankers third card was a friggin 7 for the F7 win.

Why is it almost always like this?  The first hand sitting the F7 wager out and it appears.  Happens quite frequently IMO.  Not just with F7 wagers, but with increased large wagers on P or B and also ties, etc, etc.

Some type of phenomenon I guess. One of many, within an actual B&M bac shoe when you really think about it...."


    I'm of the opinion that f I'm going to wager for any of the bonus bets such as F7 or any of the more complex events I'm more likely to wager at front end of shoe vs latter. All other causal or correlated variables the same.
Yes, we can obviously see any outcome anywhere in the shoe. However, IMO the more complex an event the greatest potential is when "all" the cards or majority of cards are still available.

As with any specific event showing we must still have the cards in the correct order for said event. My logic is that even if we get the correct shuffle and cut for let's say (F7) to show early in the shoe. That same "order" of cards will reappear (cycle again) later in shoe, even allowing for the cards shifting back/forth due to 4-5-6 card hands.

However, at that latter point in the shoe when the order has reappeared if the previous numerical card values are no longer in shoe (or fewer) then the probability of seeing the F7-forming card values again is now less likely. Of course, when all the card values needed for an F7 are still available in abundance immediately after the initial F7 presented the card order may not have cycled back through again. This is when we see that 3C7 show but on the Player side. If we track certain cards for certain events such as F7 its surprising to see how often that 3c7 hand shows overall as many times the Player side is receiving the majority and many times, we don't notice if P is the recipient.

Continued Success,

Thx 8OR9, good link  https://plusevanalytics.wordpress.com/



Continued Success,

I saw this article on Breitbart news 2/23/23.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/02/23/more-criminal-charges-for-ftx-founder-Sam-bankman-fried/

Hi asym

Nice /thorough essay.

"a) baccarat productions could be not perfect randomly offered;

b) baccarat productions are affected by a kind of 'dependence' as a finite number of cards is employed to deal the game (bac rules considered)."


re: a) I agree, however, the detection early in the "non-random" presentation is often difficult. This nonrandom presentation often is fleeting or short-lived, IMO, at least for me it is difficult to discern in early stages.

re: b) The finiteness of cards and events is IMO what makes Bac a better game vs say craps or blackjack(early shuffles,..etc).



Continued Success,

Kudos to the originator of this thread: Bally6354. Thx alrelax for repost.

Many excellent thoughts/comments, and I will mention just a couple below. I "think" I read this book years ago. However, I don't recall some of the paragraphs above. A great read and several phrases worthy of further exploration.

''If there is one thing I have learned about gambling, it's to recognize and respect streaks. This is true, incidentally, in all casino games."...

...If, for example, the cards favour the player for three consecutive decisions, then your next bet should either be player or you shouldn't bet at all! If you lose, you lose only one wager. If you bet against the trend, you can be suckered into betting and betting and betting. I have seen more fortunes lost by people who became emotionally committed to one position that went against the trend than through any other folly in gaming!..."

I did this once. Once and only once. Once being the key word.  My preference if I feel a strong need to go against a pattern is to make only two attempts, and if failed attempts, then I abort the mission. I do not switch sides at that stage in the streak.

"...is to take advantage of those times when I have a winning pattern going for me. And one of the ways I do that, take advantage of the good luck, is to keep playing.
The majority of people come into a casino and when they get lucky they quit to soon. They start out with a couple of hundred dollars, win $500 and walk out with the feeling that they have scored a tremendous victory over the casino. Those same people will come back time after time and drop $50, $100, $200 each visit, and without realizing it they still aren't ahead when they do get lucky. Because they quit playing too soon. Vegas casinos are so plush and luxurious because people don't always cut their losses but they cut their winnings!..."

IMO this is the nemesis for many players, and I see it every day. Many players simply will NOT allow themselves to win at the higher levels(> .5 or >100% of buy in). Yet willingly allow the casino to repeatedly take their buyin.
Its not so much a fear of losing as it is an unwillingness to win.

Any time I hear a player say something post trip: I'm not sure how much money I made, probably close to break even, BBUUUTT we had several great meals, and free hotel, and and and ,....etc. I know with great confidence they were playing just to break even and not playing to win.

Sometimes the W simply isn't there--that is the trip that we must simply limit the losses and if one does, the big W trips will neutralize/surpass that limited loss. Many do the exact opposite--limit the upside and lose without limits(i.e., buyin +).

IMO we should view our buyin as investment risk. Exhaust it and make the casino work hard for it, but most importantly limit the losing sessions. In other words be willing to win at the >=level of risk we are willing to undertake.

I remember the words of my greeeaatt uncle Confucius:

"Grasshopper, risk is the price one pays for opportunity."



Continued Success,

https://www.casino.org/news/jackpot-caesars-palace-pays-out-over-500k-to-NFL-rookie-ronnie-rivers/

Asymbacguy:

"Human mind is somewhat 'biased' by constantly looking for simmetry. Several studies have shown that when subjects are instructed to write down 'random' successions applied to a binomial probability, a sure undeniable 'overalternating' feature affects the results.
More interestingly is that real random objective successions are perceived by subjects 'less random' whereas unrandom successions are mostly considered as 'randomly' formed."

that's interesting. Along the same topic. I've seen studies that suggested slot players can detect a difference >=2% between payouts. For example, after playing multiple machines the player could correctly select the machine that paid more or less if that (more or less amount was >=2%).

So when we hear an avid slot player say: I don't play at XYZ casino because their slots are tight. Maybe they are indeed correct.

Cheers,

Good thoughts and comments everyone.

The original author stated his primary objective for his ranking:

"The orig author indicated the main selection criteria focused on:

Ratio of amount of money the player can expect to lose -to- total amount of money wagered, including subsequent wagers like doubling in blackjack, raising in ultimate texas holdem,...etc. Optimum strategy and only base bets."

So based on his prerequisite I have no reason to disagree with his ranking for that exact criteria. Some of the games he lists I've never played so I don't have an opinion.

I do think some games such as sports betting (NFL football teasers) wagered during the season and not post season may provide some opportunities for an advantaged wager with a fair payout.

alrelax:
"there are no mathematical stats that can apply to a section here or there and a shoe or two or three.

Why?  Because there are huge variance, gaps and related events that come into play that are irregular and without measurable consistency points that happen.  Depending on the way we play, we might make huge money or lose huge money when those irregular events happen. "

I concur.

asymbacguy:
"Besides math, probably sports betting is the best 'game' to risk the money at, b"

    I agree and think there is some potential for the patient punter that is willing to wait for the best wager in the (good,better,best) scenario. Especially if one has casino access to wager as soon as lines come out, ...etc..

Asymbacguy:

"Among the games where we can anytime choose to bet or not (in our opinion a decisive factor) there are roulette and craps.

Live unbiased roulettes aren't beatable by any means but automated roulettes do are unless a RRS is added to the spins production."

    Until the past couple years I had never met a long-term successful roulette player. I always just walked faster as I approached the roulette wheel and all I could see in my mind's eye was "-5.26%" ,lol.
Bottomline: I just can't bring myself to choose an even-chance wager at 18/38 when I can find games @ 18/36. Maybe there's something to it that I'm not considering. I could see maybe selecting the most hot 11 or 12 inside numbers with some sort of trigger,...etc. We don't know what we don't know so maybe the hardcore rouletters know something I don't. They most certainly know more than I do.

Asymbacguy:
"For practical reasons, 'no side bets' baccarat is by far and without any shadow of doubt the best game to make money in a casino for the old features we're stressing about for years:"

YES SIR

A friend sent me this list. I wasn't surprised to see Bac in the top ten.  A little surprised to see sports betting in 3rd place. Though I don't know much about sports betting. I would have guessed Pai Gow Tiles would be a little higher, especially if evaluated as decisions per hour along with H.E..

In my opinion some games would likely be a little higher ranking if the criteria was how much one would lose by time played. As mentioned above slower-decision games such as Pai Gow Tiles may fair better. Games such as Craps line bets that are often calculated as average decisions for bet to get resolved will sometimes not be resolved for several hands (or often the first hand), so in my opinion they should be evaluated for these top ten lists on a per roll(or hand) basis.

What is your opinion? Any thoughts?

The orig author indicated the main selection criteria focused on:

Ratio of amount of money the player can expect to lose -to- total amount of money wagered, including subsequent wagers like doubling in blackjack, raising in ultimate texas holdem,...etc. Optimum strategy and only base bets.



List in order 10--1:

10.Mississippi Stud
Roulette
Baccarat
Pai Gow Tiles
Spanish 21
Blackjack
Ultimate Texas Holdem
Sports Betting
Video Poker
Craps



Orig author M. Shackleford


Continued Success,

Good read alrelax from your post above: Baccarat Before And Now

Good comparison on Pre2000 "1970s--1980s" TV with Then-and-Now in the Bac rooms: Pre2K and Post2K. I started playing along that time I think: post2000 or near that time.

"...Baccarat was a total different atmosphere pre-2000 and post 2000 wise that is. Pre 2000 clearly not so combative, without a doubt less systematic, staff and dealers actually trying to make the players comfortable, happy and resolve all problems prior to escalation without any doubt whatsoever.  Even the interaction among the players was generally one of total camaraderie and same side defense against the house, rather than I will wager against you and show you what a fool you really are, type of people. It really was like a TV show just generally a 2 1/2 hour classic show each episode instead of 30 minutes.  ..."


It seems most changes were made in the first 5-8 years into this period post 2000. Since 2010 I really haven't noticed anything new except a few more bonus bets added to EZ bac table layouts. I have noticed new RFID chips in past year--the cameras overhead read the bet size and they base ratings/comps from your actual bet size. So no subjectiveness or rating from the pit personnel.

It also seems the dress code has regressed some from 2000 to 2020. IMO players use to respect the Bac game and Bac room a little more. Players seemed to at least throw on a light sports coat or at least pants or nicer jeans with a polo. Now not so much. Part of that I think is that many casinos don't seem to have as many high-limit rooms and now maybe just section off a high-limit area of the floor. Plus the minibac tables are now often positioned within other table games and all in the same pit. So we get alot of passerbys just strolling by and deciding to play a few minutes,...etc.

Seldom saw a big table after 2010 or so/ only in vegas. re: the combativeness mentioned in the bold above. I really haven't noticed much of that then or now. I do see players opposing other bettors but seldom see other players trying to one up others. Maybe I just haven't noticed.

Thx and great read.


Continued Success,

Hi Albalaha

"Do not forget one peculiar thing about bitcoin. It was the pioneer, and all other coins are altcoins."

I agree and think that is an important attribute. Similar to Twitter, or the first cell-phone company tower in an area, or the first cable/internet company that dug a ditch through our back yard....etc.  The first or incumbent company not only enjoys the name or brand recognition but typically has many other advantages going forward.

"n every halving, bitcoin reached a new all-time high that is usually at least 50% up from the last run highest. 2024 is the year of bitcoin halving. "

     I would agree that 2024 may but not in 2023. I think if we spread out the chart above, we will see Bitcoin is actually still in a bear market. Though I do agree it has approached a key metric in the past few days. My technical charts suggest it will need to increase 2-3K more from current levels in the very near future to clear this hurdle. I may be wrong but view this recent uptick as a fake out.

Caveat emptor.


Continued Success,

Hi Asymbacguy

In your post #751 above:

"Of course and as already sayed, single shoe productions are finite so anytime a more likely value or class of values are surpassed, we better consider the room left to get the more likely events coming out...."

I agree and like how you worded this. My personal view is that no matter what we choose to track in a single shoe it is finite and should be treated as always approaching a limit.

For example, let say we are charting or tracking "n": P/B, 2/2s, 1/2s,1/3s,the 8 card,...etc  Fill In The Blank, and as soon as "n" occurs for the first time, there are now only "n-1" remaining in that shoe.

We don't know exactly (though the laws of probability help guide us), what we do know is there is now one less and we just missed number one. Obviously, we still don't know exactly how many will present due to cut and residual cards at the end.
Yes, and this could be that one shoe where an extreme number for a specific multi-card pattern far greater than expectation presents. However, we do know there is now only "n-1" of that just-presented outcome available.
Plus, other patterns with similar-probability or greater-probability, that have NOT had one "n" removed yet, are still just as determined to present at >=their expected levels with less distance now available.

From the cut card onward every card, suite, pattern,  starts becoming n-1,n-2, ...etc as we cycle through the shoe.


Continued Success,