Hi as / thx for all your writings(especially this one).
There are many true statements and just a few of my favorites are posted below.

I like that your essays include real-time table experiences along with statistics, not ignoring either, and blending them appropriately. IMO there is room for both in a professional Bac players regime(or there better be room for both) if one wants to survive at the tables.

I will comment more this weekend as your truisms deserve a more detailed reply.

Not in any particular order of importance:

*It's intuitive to think that if no system works any other approach wouldn't. Providing sequences are random regardless of the method utilized.
In a nutshell, successful players of both categories rely upon 'non randomness' of the outcomes.

*A system player is more adapted to the natural negative variance than any other player, mainly as he/she thinks the game as a long term succession not splitted into sessions, days or other very short term evaluations.

*If any shoe dealt would produce random successions the probability to win is 0.
Humans can't read randomness by any means, actually casinos hope their shoes to be randomly offered and somewhat hoping some shoes will produce strong deviations to be caught by players. So giving the perfect 'illusion' that the game could be beaten.

*HE can only be beaten by a bet selection working at supposedly unrandom productions and not by progressions or human guesses, therefore most of our bets must be placed at EV+ spots otherwise we'll lose.

*Standard deviation values of our bets are the watchdog of randomness or possible unrandomness.

*If the system provides a strict flat betting scheme, the probability to be ahead by chance is very close to zero.

*Regardless of a bet selection capable to get the advantage of verified smaller sd values than expected, variance remains a strong enemy of every system or replicable approach, especially when adopting a flat betting scheme.

*Remember that anytime we sit at a bac table we must adopt a kind of 'sky's the limit' approach, the only thing we can concede at casinos is their HE that counts nothing itlr.


    IMO on this last one: Variance always swamps HE.


Good thread AsymBacGuy and I look forward to your future discussions on the above. I encourage others to jump in and offer their opinions/ questions as well.


Continued Success,

as:
knowing thay we can afford to let them to reach some values without risking a dime.

The link is a good read on several topics.

re:Post by wannawin and One Half Up

"... - June 24, 2013, 12:47:17 PM
What is your opinion about the One Half Up betting system?

One Half Up

This is a very popular positive progression system. You do not increase your bet until you win two bets in a row, then you keep increasing your bet by one half of your original bet. Here is an example.

You make a $10 bet and win. You are now even so you don't progress yet. You make another $10 bet and win. You are now ahead $10. Your next bet is $15. You are progressing but you still have a profit of $5. If you win the $15 bet your next bet is $20. If you lose you go back to $10. You still have a profit of $15.  ..."

     First I will note that many pos progression regimes posted and discussed on forums almost always indicate(or assume) the wager is placed for consecutive wins streak on one side(meaning PPPPPP  OR BBBBBBB or PBPBPBPB, ...etc.

Im an advocate for pos progressions, however, not necessarily the same event reoccurring in a row. I find for me personally I can put together a longer win streak by grabbing 1-3 wins in a row several times vs all consecutively in a row. I will even carry that pressed-up wager over into another shoe or session. Its my opinion there are only so many "best" spots per shoe for only a few select events.

re: wannawins one half up
     I would be inclined to do a fractional addendum press% as a function of the original bet size not the most recent bet size as wannawins' example. In his example I would be more inclined to make the increase a f(x) of the $10 base unit( e.g.,($10 +5 +3,  ,, etc). Obviously it is easier with a larger starting-size wager (Plus I find it easier to do with a metric that uses a base bet easily divided by sixths (e.g., $60 or one could use $30, though most of my casinos are $50 min). The sixths provides options just in case we can put together a longer streak. Its difficult to put together a longer streak than six so I wouldn't be too overly concerned on what to do after the sixth press.
For example ($60,90,110,...etc) or (1+1/2+1/3 ,...etc) with my main point being to make each successive press a less-than-or-equal press % than the previous press %.

Ultimately what we are saying when choosing to do a pos progression is : "I want to replace a higher % of my lossess at my base unit near 1.0 units with fewer wins at a higher level. Thus I don't need to win as many wagers as I lose , though I will need to put together a streak of wins".
As most of you wil agree this streak-of-wins is undetermined because we don't know how many 1.0 U losses we will accrue PRIOR to getting that streak of wins. If one can put together a streak of 3 and possibly 4 based on their preferred base unit size -to- buyin, they are well on their way to winning more than they lose. If not then a pospro is risky for that individual.

For example: wannawins' question:
"You make a $10 bet and win. You are now even so you don't progress yet. You make another $10 bet and win. You are now ahead $10. Your next bet is $15."
     My preference is to press from the first win instead of second win(We don't know any more about how long our hit streak will be after the second win than we do on the first. IMO we must get the compounding started immediately (if one is choosing to live or die by the press), so we can get a compounding % spinoff.

Im in favor of whatever we choose as our press % to make: Pr1% > Pr2% >Pr3%,...etc with only one stutter step where we collect our monies out of the pressed up wager(though still pressing on that stutter step).

Press-to-your-win


More later,

Welcome to the forum BrendanMelendez
 
     I agree. Nothing more fun than a cash extraction from the casino.


Continued Success,

Thx 8OR9 /good link.

I saw a brief sketch on that story when it broke a few days ago but didn't realize the heist occurred such a long time ago. I feel for the many victims as they will likely see very little of the recovered loot.

*I'm guessing in a couple years we will start seeing movies about all these crypto heists.
Similar to "Oceans 11 series" with George Clooney or "Catch me if you can" with Leonardo Decaprio, ...etc.


Cheers,

https://www.playusa.com/october-2022-casino-las-vegas-news/

Thanks VLS        AWESOME

https://www.usnews.com/news/sports/articles/2022-09-07/wins-and-losses-can-pile-up-with-sped-up-sports-betting

Delaware Sportsbetting hold by month:

December 2021    $12,638,955    ($968,520)    -7.7%    ($992,897)

*I do recall AsymBacGuy made the trek to Delaware,USA back in Dec of 21'. Coincidence, I think not.

Thx . Interesting data.

They too experience Variance. e.g., Note this in two consec months for Delaware with an approx 4-year avg hold of 14.7%:

November 2021    $15,567,067    $4,567,120    29.3%    $3,391,917
December 2021    $12,638,955    ($968,520)    -7.7%    ($992,897)

Also note the difference by state.


Continued Success,

Awesome and thanks for note VLS. Congrats to VLS/alrelax.

*Something to consider:
I was actually considering mentioning to ownership in past but kept forgetting. I would be for us (the forum members) to do an annual trip to Vegas for 3-days of Bac around this time of year to celebrate the forums anniversary (on or near 10/16) and make it an annual event. So older/newer forum members could do a meet/greet and share the tables. Make it annually and near the anniversary date each year so our Bac comrades from around the globe could make travel plans.

Think about it/continued success to all.

Hi all,

alrelax:
"...But, your mind cannot easily adapt to wagering for chops, 1s-2s-3s, cuts after ties and/naturals, etc., etc., if you are into strong clumping, streaks and side bets/bonuses and so on and vice versa. ..."


I agree. Some players will finally adapt, however, its only after the recent string of events is at the final stage. Many come to the table with a "predetermined" plan of attack such as: I shall wager against every xyz or I shall wager with xyz every time I see them,...etc. My belief is that we should have a predetermined wager design (pos or neg progression, flat, increments, presses, regresses...etc), but let the shoe determine our entry/exit point.
    *I've only observed one player that wins consistently with a predetermined wager placement. He wagers mostly for Ties and is extremely patient. He uses a scaled scoring system along with a sllloooowwwww negpro and I've observed him play a whole shoe making only 1-2 bets. He most certainly wins more than loses every year.

ABG:
"...That's why, imo, many times we shouldn't bet at all especially when losing so a possible philosophy to adopt may be:

"If I'm betting here, I'm more likely to lose more than partially recovering the loss"

This is a asymmetrical situation affecting our mindset as the damage of getting one more loss is superior than the benefit of winning one single hand...."

Nicely stated and words of wisdom. Something we should all think about.
I think one of the reasons is that most of us find being in a "losing stage" (meaning we are currently guessing wrong more than right) as uncomfortable/ we are then too eager to wager again and hopefully remove that bad feeling.
I know personally Im more eager to bet or get into next shoe, or go out again the next day, following a losing streak. When compared to my eagerness following an easy shoe, day, or trip as its easier to get lazy, reminisce, and just count my newly won monies,....etc. 

alrelax:
[color=navy]"...I like the 'Titanic' as well!

We simply label those shoes, 'The shoe from hell'...."
[/color]
    re: Titanic shoes vs jackpot shoes. I use to think that when presented with extreme shoes the table was split near 50-50. Meaning approx half the players won big and half lost big. What I often see instead is at a table of say six players approx 4-5 will lose big and 1 will win big. However, in a jackpot shoe only 1-2 will win big and 4-5 lose. Im not sure why but players seem to wager more aggressively when losing vs winning. Just my observation and I may be wrong in this assertion.


Continued Success,

Good thread.

ABG:
"...My thoughts on this interesting post.

1) Correct up to a point. Very rare shoes produce what I name'em as 'jackpot' shoes.
Miracles happen the same as nightmares happen.

'Sooner or later our ship will come and when it does we better not to be at the airport ' 
..."

    I agree. However, many players won't have the patience to wait for the 'jackpot' shoes/when they are presented with a jackpot shoe will not jump on it fast enough. Yet the same players will leap fast /headfirst onto the 'Titanic' shoes. As albalaha said many times in his posts: We will see near equal of both. It's the variance we must navigate (pos and neg).


This reminds me of what my GRREATTT Uncle Confucius once told me: "Grasshopper, it's not how fast you win, it's how well you win fast."   


Continued Success to All,

Many thx Asymbacguy for your elaborate answers to my Q up above.

Many gold nuggets:

Well, there's a 7.3% general math propensity toward 4-card hands than 5-card hands formation. Obviously the main factor orienting 4-card hands is the naturals apparition (34.2% vs 3.6%).
And again more obvious is the fact that shoes rich of 8s and 9s make more probable this possibility.
...

yet a fair amount of 5-card hands go toward Player side, think about standing or natural P points or asymmetrical spots where third cards help the P with Banker standing.

Do not forget that B winning hands are payed 0.95:1 and that a fair amount of 5-card hands (nearly 40%) are strongly favorite (at various degrees) to win the P side at the start.

...

It's the same reason working at asymmetrical spots when the third card instructs the Banker to stand while Player has a winning hand.

Maybe in the future Banker will win by standing points but the asymmetrical spots are somewhat consumed as they are limited in their appearance.
With the decisive difference that P standing points get a 40% probability to happen whereas asymmetrical spots have a 8.6% probability to happen, that is 4.65 times more likely to show up.


    I agree 100% on this last one. Im always astonished at how many players will state or suggest their "go to" method is to always bet Banker. Its funny that in past couple months I've had two acquaintances that play poker and related games(with above-avg skill) on a semi-professional level come up to me and state: I've got this friend or brother,...etc that makes a killing playing Bac and he always bets Banker continuously and everytime, ("and he wins big,makes a living,makes huge money...etc), as if they are trying to impress me knowing that I mostly play Bac.
They lose me as soon as they state : "he only bets Banker everytime".


Continued Success,

HI ASB

U say:
"...
it's quite unlikely to get a back to back 6-card hand, then it's even more unlikely to get a two cluster of 6-card hands. And so on.
Itlr 6-card hands are way more likely to come out as 'singled' patterns.

and

In addition, 6-card hands deny the Banker advantage unless the third card is a 6 or a 7 and B has a 6 two-card point.

Shoes rich of 6-card hands are more difficult to be detected as key cards distribution do not make their more likely job..."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with first part re unlikely scenario for bk2bk 6-card totals. So, if we follow that logic post-6card hand that now there is a greater probability for a 4-card or 5-card hand showing next (hopefully for B bettor it's the latter) ---

Q: Is there anything within that most recent 6-card hand that would suggest which of the two hand totals(4 or 5) is more likely as a f(x) of that 6-card hands' makeup. I believe 5-card hand is slightly more likely itlr (can't recall the exact % but believe its ~~31%.)

(Q1 is there an indicator suggesting a 4-card is more likely to show vs a 5-card hand next.)?
(Q2: Does your logic above also suggest that a 4-card hand is similarly less probable to show Bk-to-Bk? What about 5-card hand ??)

Thx in advance ASB or anyone else,