Hi Alb
Thx for reply to my Q

What was the MOST hit in any 1000 consec trials  for each side (B and P) ? Thx in advance.

    "...558 and 548. You should get the MAX seeing the Least of its counterpart when Ties are already removed from counting...."

I concur


Continued Success,

Hi AsymBacGuy
Good post. Thx for answering my question and the additional intel is thought provoking.


"...We'll see more deeply this issue in a couple of days. ..."

We look forward to the next edition.



kfb

Good post and comments PatternAnalys and Albalaha

PatternAnalys
"...I think, betting a fixed, "player only", or bet "banker only", will inevitably meet harsh negative extreme..."

IMO it is the "fixed" or what I call predetermined bet selection that contributes to our expected harsh negative extreme.  Variance will always be our number one nemesis. 

Albalaha

re: "...I recently checked Zumma 1600, 117k+ hands of baccarat without Ties. In Player, 442 was the least hit in 1000 consecutive trials and 452 for Banker. I believe it could be 400/100 as the worst being 5SD. As I said repeatedly, it could be even 300/1000 at a point of time and we need not win that span but stay least harmed. Winning in the long run can not include winning 5SD variance. .."

Q: What the MOST hit in any 1000 consec trials  for each side (B and P) ? Thx in advance.



Continued Success,

Hi Albalaha. Thx for your thoughts/comments.

"...while positive progression either presupposes more wins than losses or looks for clumping wins. If you simulate any so called positive progression in the long run, it can't win there while negative progressions if used cautiously could surpass over 10 millions spins test on roulette while I did it with Ophis.   ..."

     I agree it(pospro) may not win to infinity trials. However, I like to also view as it can win First (meaning prior to losing buyin), and can win several x buyin, BEFORE, its ultimate demise. I also like that no casino rules that require us to play 100% of our wins back through the casino. 

     *When I run sims or see a completed study or sims on a pospro I also find it helpful to look at not only the number of trials, but also things like : Did the sims only include same-side streaks(i.e., vertical presentation on a tote board) or other streaks, % of press, how many presses, was the bet required to be active on all wins for that streak (from first through last), did the pressed wager continue to the end, did the wager birth/die in only one streak,....etc, was the press regime linear or exponential, where did the average basal and ceiling occur, how far apart were said basal/ceiling, where did the first basal show(# of trials on avg),  just to  name a few.


negative progressions if used cautiously could surpass over 10 millions spins test on roulette while I did it with Ophis.   ..."[/i][/color]

     that's impressive--Im guessing it was a same-side wager(e.g., black or red?)?


"... Rather, negative progressions are based on more realistic premise, i.e. expecting lesser wins than losses while positive progression either presupposes more wins than losses or looks for clumping wins.  ..."

IMO one of the main attributes of Pospro is the addendum earnings and future potential anytime we can get "clumped wins"(clumping meaning we are winning consecutive wagers and not necessarily consecutive same-side or same pattern or same shoe), simply meaning we won consecutive bets(maybe by luck, probability, trigger, verified advantage, variance, proven theory, hunch,...etc,, it doesn't matter why they occurred consecutively ).
Secondly, a pospro allows one to win even if guessing <50% correct---though they will need to be consec winners.
     
     The downside of a pos pro is obviously that our consecutive(or clump of wins) will generally need to be at least 3-consec and optimally four or five to start seeing an exponential compounding effect, AND said consec bets need to show above expectation more shoes than not.
This is where other ratios are important: Bet size-to-Buyin-to-Bankroll. Too small of wager size and we are required to achieve more winning wagers. Too Big /we may be limited in attempts and then bet too few attempts and thus our hit rate will need to be signif higher than average,,.....etc.

I don't view three consec wins on either side , pattern, inter-shoe, ..etc as being difficult at all in a random even-chance game of 84 decisions.  Once we start seeking the >=four/five consec is where we must start considering the average distance(or wait time) we can expect to endure if one is wagering randomly in an even-chance game.
All patterns do not have the same wait time or distance between presentation.

*Side Note: I have only played one shoe in my lifetime across thousands of shoes that neither P or B showed 3 in a row same-side wins(ppp or bbb). That particular shoe only had one 3-consec chop(near the end).

Im  in favor of pospro with maybe a little negpro blended in to help nick away at the house edge with little risk of ruining my buyin.
Im not against negpro if that is ones chosen M.O.    I do like albalahas' term above: Hybrid --as long as we don't try to contain or restrict too much of the variance. 







Continued Success To All,

Hi alrelax

Good post as i just re viewed this although I read awhile back. Several key points regarding negpro and some of the issues. I will preface my thoughts with the fact Im almost a 100% pospro so my opinions may be biased. Im sure negpro-only players can also point out some of the negative aspects of pos pro-only systems.

My perception is that your post speaks mostly on steep martys. However, imo a diluted marty(slower curve with more negpro levels) is just as dangerous or even more so. Though the diluted marty may spread out the pain it will in the end still deliver alot of unnecessary pain even if it does prevail in the end. This "unnecessary" pain one must endure (and even if victorious), only receives a small prize in the end, is my main reason for not choosing a negpro.

My quick thoughts:
Both negpro and pospro are compounding any advantage(or lack of). Neither change the EV for the Cas.
For the most part the difference simply boils down to which type of personality one is more aligned. Do we feel more comfortable limiting a loss or amplifying a win. I am more aligned with the latter.


"... to attempt 8 progressions to recoup your $10.00 or $20.00 lost. I say 8 attempts is what needs to be planned to prevail on a negative progression, not 6 or 7.
But to me, that energy, that feeling, that risk is absurd!  And it will play on almost everyone's mind, almost. ..."

     I think it goes back to ones personality. The fear of losing or being drawn down is greater than ones willingness and desire to accept a big win. Same reason much of society (think commercials) play on this common "fear" trait.
E.G., Additional insurance to cover/improve your current insurance policy. "You already have a boatload of insurance for everything--then you need to buy our supplemental insurance to supplement the supplement plan,...etc. " 

Additional medicine to add to or improve your current medicine so you get less sick or don't die die die--Even though the Rx company originally touted the first medicine as the goto cureall, just to name a few.  It seems every where I look society is playing on fear.
Fear is a powerful emotion. Fear is a good thing and needed , especially for us gamblers. However, imo unreasonable and non-warranted fear sometime drives too many of our gambling decisions.

"... Kind of the same at gambling where you have to win so many to make up a loss and the frame of mind it gets most everyone into. .."

     If one must do a negpro only and always do negpro I think the key is to NOT feel a need to make up the losses immediately on this shoe or this session or this day.  Albalaha writes alot of good essays on this --pointing out that optimally its best to not attempt getting it all back at once.


"... Moral=Take the loss, make it up later, don't shoot for the absolute immediate to become whole for the past negatives..."

     I agree 100%. If one must play a negpro and must recoup quick I would be more inline with a negpro containing five levels (vs say 7-9) and rewards the bettor with slightly larger win the deeper one is forced to endure additional pain levels.

E.G.,   1,3,7,15,31 .
So the bettor would need to see a specific event six consec times to lose. The loss shouldnt  be catastrophic to ones total bankroll.  Call it a session and be done with it. One can continue with a recoup in future sessions if one must recoup. The main prob I see with the steep marty isn't neccessarily that i have a disdain for negpro martys.  Its the number of steep levels in the approach that majority of players want to implement--just to avoid the pain of a loss in that single session.  I say give your money a fair chance to prevail and just accept the small loss.


Learning how to lose and how to limit the inevitable losses helped me learn how to accept larger and more frequent wins.  Though I still get my share of the L sessions.

Thx again alrelax for all your posts.



Continued Success,

Hi AsymBacGuy

re: "... The 'space' concept was so seriously taken by certain high end casinos that even though the only side bet offered at their tables are ties, 8-deck shoes are played up to 50-56 hands. Then they shuffle again. ..."
[/b]
     Q: Do you know of houses that do this on a regular(daily) basis  ?

Thx in advance,

Good posts AsymBacGuy. Thx for taking the time to elaborate with examples.

I agree with most everything u mention above re: bet selection and only betting in select spots.
I view most all shoes as offering  us potential wagering spots. I also think shoes provide many +wagering spots. I think of these potential +spots in terms of:
Good, Better, and Best.

Its difficult at times for us to pass on the Good/Better spots and wait for the Best. However, the latter is certainly more lucrative/yields a better ROI. 


Continued Success,

Hi ViksHrks and welcome to the forum.

*Im not clear on what your specific question is from the above post.


Continued Success,

Hi AsymBacGuy

"... People making a living at this game know very well that baccarat could be beaten only at very few spots arising along most part of shoes but not along every shoe.
It's the same concept why bj is beatable, albeit taken from different perspectives. Math issues at bj, card distribution issues at baccarat. ..."



  Like Button

I agree Albalaha. My thoughts exactly.

Thanks VLS and alrelax.



Continued Success,

Hi AsymBacGuy
Thx for the last couple of posts here--I like that you view bac through a dif lens than alot of players.

"..Positionally speaking, if any event is already more likely than the counterpart, vertical 'hand insensitive' spots considered shoe per shoe will be even more likely or not, meaning that shoe single digit numbers will deviate from a supposedly perfect random world..."

     Q: Can u clarify or elaborate a little more on this sentence .


"..Moreover an interesting study has found out that rare events tend to come out in clusters then declining in probability.
The authors of this study claimed that such findings wouldn't get an advantage over gambling games...."
     I agree with the first sentence  re: clustering.

     Im not sure(or don't have a strong opinion) on the second sentence.  At first glance I guess it could, however, other factors to consider. 

Q : Do you recall the link to these authors' study. 


Thx in advance,kfb

Hi alrelax

Good post. I like the Fifth as shown below from your 1-5 list.  There is certainly a subtle (yet important) difference between drawdown vs stop loss.  That last sentence affects most of us. It is very doubtful that any of us would be feeling optimistic about our upcoming decision if we had just been whacked on say 4 of last 5 decisions and approaching our drawdown.

*A Funny Side Story--I recall once guessing wrong on 7/8 of my first decisions in a shoe. What made it even more memorable is that I had recently been on a two week daily run wining streak with a very high win percentage / just taken a 3-day trip where I had been whacked early on and though recovered some still tagged with an overall trip loss(thus ending my win streak) .

So I was eager to "get back into the saddle" and went out to play the very next evening after returning from my trip(whereas I usually took a day off). Right out of the first shoe of the day I missed on those first 7/8 decisions and literally felt like I had been hit with a 2 x 4. The kicker was to add to my internal pressure of not sticking to a drawdown rule  is a 60ish y.o. couple (in matching shirts/pants), sipping matching pina coladas , and appeared to just be wandering around observing the games. They stand directly behind me and start pecking me on the shoulder asking: "is this game hard to learn?" and several more Q like :  "why don't u just bet the red color because it is winning?" lol.  Though I tried to be polite it certainly didn't help to have them behind me . Thankfully, the dealer finally waived them along and told them  not to stand behind/ask players questions. I ended up losing the shoe--still recall it like it was yesterday. Bottomline: I shouldnt have even been in the casino the next day post the 3day losing trip as Im sure there was carryover of negative emotions. Along with alrelax post above my drawdown rule coupled with the negativity, and my negative internal sentiment, should have kept me out of the shoe after the first several misses on the 7 of 8 losing streak. Lesson learned (the hard way).

".....Fifth.  Don't confuse drawdown with stop loss. Many will fail to see the difference but there really is. Drawdown is an undetermined and unplanned amount of money that will be lost before you realize a profit that is within your horizon of, 'winning the session and it is time for me to stop', thought and belief you religiously and wholeheartedly subscribe to that governs how you play. Stop loss is simply a set amount of money if you lose out of a buy-in, you will stop playing, no leeway and no questions. Stop loss is not figured into your playing protocol, while drawdown has to be viewed that way and planned for.  Because what you are actually doing if you do include drawdown into your buyin and protocol of playing, is you are combating great negativity that affects every player...."



Continued Success,

Hi PatternAnalys

Good Point: There no law stipulates, that in labby,
one must start from a single digit,
or must closed the long string og million digits string.


There no law stipulates, that in labby,
one must start from a single digit,
or must closed the long string og million digits string...
If you start a labby with a single digit,
say,
"1",
then 33.34%hit ,no matter how many bets,...needed to closed the labby.

If we start with two digit,
say,
(0)(1), then 33.34% +1more hit .
needed to closed.

say, three,
0,0,1.
then 33.34+ 2more hit,
and so on.
Thus in 2000bets, 900 hit almost certain...
2000x33.4~=667..-900=233long string


* I like your name: PatternAnalys


Continued Success,

Hi Albalaha--I see youre still in the laboratory.

re: your thoughts. "...Shoes doesn't matter buddy. It is only a sequence of wins and losses for me. Say it is coin flipping and if they change coin, should it change any probability? I do not understand why guys like you who has considerable knowledge of math and experience ask such questions..."[/b]
     Because when Im not at live tables (approx 1800 hands per week), Im studying, and constantly striving to learn and improve my game from other players (especially the online players).

"...online, it is 10 to 50k on most tables and 25 to 5k-10k on others. I hate restrained bet limits. Although my current methodology seldom requires bet of more than 15 units. ..."

     Yes , I can only imagine how burdensome that must be to you.


Next News Story: "ALBALAHA COMING TO AMERICA"

"...Maybe some day. I do not want to feature in the black book of casinos. Thanks for the best wishes..."

     Good thinking--To help with that worry and to "lay low" or "fly under the radar",...etc, you could maybe consider playing under an alias (e.g., Kung Fubac ).

"...Thanks for the best wishes.."

You are welcome.

Hi Albalaha--Fine Post.
It appears you have been spending alot of time in the lab.

"...30 consecutive trials with 9 or lesser wins; or
8 or more consecutive losses before a W hits; or
10 or more losses, in the last two wins like LLLLLLWLLLLW
These will be a 2 SD (below mean) case..."

     This is interesting. I would hypothesize u should see this often enough at front end of shoes to make your wait time tolerable.
     Q: Am I correct you allow these triggers to present across two shoes??

"...Plus, I will keep a target of +50 and stop loss of -100
I believe that due to sequential probability, I have got at least 90% chances to win a session and combining all these forces would make it 95%. However, certain sessions might not yield 50 units. ..."

     I like your metric and ratios on this part.

Re: However, certain sessions might not yield 50 units.
     Q: When it doesn't achieve >=50 U win do you mean it approaches 50(like + 43, 48,...etc)??

"...Only downside of this strategy is to wait for a valid alert but even if I have access to 4-5 tables with marquee, it is easy to get 3-5 alerts in 5-8 hours in a real casino, in baccarat. I have got access to 50+ tables of live baccarat online 24x7x365 so easy for me to get even more everyday..."

     What is bet spread for most of your online casinos? Can u actually see the cut and dealers dispersing cards for each individual hand??

*Casino in Vegas offers multi-portal Stadium Bac (wager on 4 live dealer tables at once) from your own individual monitor with dealers in view/video transmitted to your screen,...etc. $5--10K bet spread.

Next News Story: "ALBALAHA COMING TO AMERICA"


Good work Albalaha.



Continued Success,