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,

Hi all,

alrelax in reply #685:

"...My 2 cents ref ties is, not to ignore as well, but I cannot agree they stop patterns or trends.  I have to say a toss up and interpretation either way by individuals.  Just look at my thread with B&M shoes posted.

I have had just as many help and encourage a side to continue as cut. ..."


re: Ties. Personally, I view them as diluting the strength of what is presenting. Typically, and with no other better intel I treat them as place holders to whatever pattern is recently presenting. For example, if a T shows in the current string as: PBPBT (I would view the T as a continuance of what is happening "P slot" and would wager for B). I will also look at most recent 2-3 Ties just before this event and see if the pattern turned or continued and wager for whatever has been occurring.

Another T method I utilize (and have not confirmed if it is beneficial) is to look at how the two sides approached the Tie and wager on the increasing totals side. For example, let's say Bs recent hand totals were 8,7,6 and Ps recent hand totals were 4,5,6. Then I would wager for P after the T because it was "increasing" as it approached the T.

I would estimate that my success rate is probably near expectation.

Continued Success,

Thanks Asymbacguy

I like your paragraph:
"...To beat this game we must 'catch up' the actual more likely card ditribution and ties tend to 'stop' patterns happening so far (number of cards employed to form hands is the answer).
I agree that playing a 'ignoring ties' strategy is a big mistake to make.

A corollary is that shoes forming a lot of 6-card results (no matter how many ties are showing up) will get us harsher situations to look for.
...."

as--Do you utilize any method to try and help guess how many cards(4,5,or 6) are more or less likely to show in next hand.

Thx,

Thx 8OR9--a good read.

I see these articles and wonder how much of the stolen(& retrieved) crypto money will be returned to the owner(IOW how much does the government(s) keep).

*Another thought I am reminded of is from the beginning some of the key attributes many crypto Co. touted were:
A) Its safe and can neverevernever be hacked. 
B)Its the only transactions in the whole wide world that has total anonymity.

"Nope/Nope"


Continued Success,

Hi all,
Hi AsymBacGuy/thx for essays above. In post #679 u say the following:

"... So no one single hand is purely belonging to a coin flip proposition, let alone about a 'model' moving around a long term 50.68/49.32 expected probability.

Baccarat hands move around strong shifted math propositions, so everytime we'll bet a side we should know we'll be hugely right or hugely wrong, regardless of how 'whimsically' the final results are formed. ..."

So no one single hand is purely belonging to a coin flip proposition,
    I agree 100%

let alone about a 'model' moving around a long term 50.68/49.32 expected probability.

    My opinion differs a little on this part as I perceive the decisions that have a P OR B winner and loser declared (Not a Tie) do indeed converge toward a ratio very close(though not exact to this), ITLR. That is, after only a few hundred decisions we can see a convergence. Though I will also state this convergence can change directions and flow outward again prior to converging again back toward expectation, so some of our views can depend on when we looked at the data(i.e. After 1000, 15000, 1000000 , et al decisions,..etc).

I see where alot of posters, data crunchers,  et al make generalized statements like:

Lets just ignore ties because we arent betting them anyway,....etc.

I like to view Ties as events too(and they are), as they have their own probability, and since we all agree each shoe will have a finite number of decisions, the overall Variance of P and B are indeed affected by the number of Ties(low or high Ties). So this contributes to my next thought. I've wondered if this tendency by some to ignore Ties when looking at large collections of data (or the Non consistent language we use when discussing the overall 50-50 ratio of P/B where some may assume the reader isn't considering Ties), is why many perceive the sole PorB decisions as always being near 50/50 ratio, thus we see a perception of many that think:
It doesn't matter how one bets as its just a "coin flip" or "fiftyfifty" anyway.
Yes, no?? What say you.

Baccarat hands move around strong shifted math propositions, so everytime we'll bet a side we should know we'll be hugely right or hugely wrong,
    ABG , when you say hugely right or wrong do you mean say 44%,53% or 57%(which is indeed huge), or do you mean something much larger(or smaller)??


Thanks in advance to all replies,

alrelax above:

"...I began to win again and really took off with larger and more aggressive wins. I became more aggressive and that paid off nicely, which is generally against the norm and past experiences I might add. I got to the point where I easily won 5 to 6 times the amount of my buy-in. Once again, the thought process was only to play and keep playing. Should I have stopped when I won 5 to 6 times the buy-in amount I was at?  I can not honestly answer that.  After a bit, I once again began to lose, my win level dropped quickly down to the point I quadrupled my buy-in.  I stopped.  To slow myself down, I was actually getting up and texting a member from this forum.  Sending pics of the score board, etc.

I probably would have colored up earlier(and missed the 500%+ buyin. I like to look at my buyin as my main >= win goal(not neccessarily per shoe but across that session. For example if I bought in for $2k and had won $2500, I look at the $500 (or maybe 3 base unit wagers) as what I am willing to give back before settling up(dispersing winmonie$ to their respective stacks). This is when my buyin is brand new(meaning in hasnt produced anything yet as I need to replace it to be even. The key IMO is that whatever one chooses for a MMM  we should do it consistently. Most all decisions will reduce to Fear vs Greed and how detached(or attached) we are to the money in our win stack. Fear is the stronger determinant in my opinion.


The dilemma i was in, I was very conscious of was, buy-in doubled, lost win and continued playing got me up to 5 to 6 times the buy-in. Lost 1 to 2 times the buy-in. Stop or continue, plenty of 'won' ammunition to possibly get up to double what I had in front of me. Meaning 9 or 10 or 11 times the buy-in or double the four times buy-in and win sitting in front of myself. I wanted to stop, but equally as much, I wanted to continue. I stopped and cashed out. ...".

The mistake I see with many players , e.g., Buyin for $2k, win $3K-$4K wagering a base unit of $50 , parlaying a few times, and pulling down at the perfect moment. Then once they have that $3-4K W in front of them they exercise -0- MMM and immediately up their base unit to say $200 and give it all back plus most of original $2k buyin,  with only the slightest of losing streaks. This obviously creates a great opportunity for the casino as they won their temporary loss back + the buyin on fewer tries than their(cas) initial loss streak.
My premise is that it is important that we exercise consistency in most all that we do.

*A perfect example of the above was at a session last week (cas has $50--$2k min/max). A player buys in for approx $1500, starts wagering $50 here and there, bonus bets(T,f7,p8), does a few presses, hits a couple bonus bets, and now has $3500 in front of him. He colors up and Im thinking "good for him".
He comes back to the table in about 15mins and now buys in with $2k, and wagers three $500 wagers along with some bonus bets,  and loses all of them/busts. He immediately starts verbalizing "how stupid am I", "damn it I knew I should have left",...etc.
Nothing wrong with playing another shoe(s) or session. Its just my main thesis is that we should not win our win money more than once. In other words exercise some method of MMM on a consistent basis so we don't "re play" 100% of our win money back through the casino machine. We need something to show for our Ws: Gold or silver coin, new watch, new shoes, pay bills,car tires,...etc. So when that $2000 buyin is separated from us we do have something to show for it.

The casino doesn't take their win money(our $2k buyin) and go buy $2000 more wooden chips. They do invest some back into the casino but also pay utility bills, mortgage , upgrades to building, company cars, outside investments, ...etc.
We should do the same with some of our won monies.


Continued Success To All,

Hi alrelax. Good thoughts in above essays. I agree and find several of these topics critical for ones long-term success.

"...Okay, while playing you better realize plenty!  No matter if you are winning or losing.

How much can I win?
How much am I prepared to lose?
Can I recoup my current losses and get back positive?
I am winning, I don't want to give it back, should I stop?
Thinking, if I stop while winning, I can't win more.   ..."

Im of the belief almost everything in our game plan should be predetermined prior to our buyin(except total win or our trailing stop-win amount). We can't determine what our stop-win amount is until we hit our high or total win for the session.

Alrelax example above where he won 500%+ of buyin(how much he was willing to risk for a potential loss). He didn't have a goal of "I shall win 500% of buyin, or nothing". Nor did he know what his hit rate would be this high. He let the Ws come to him.

Since he won 500% I doubt if his predetermined wagering regime was "I shall wager a $25 continuous flat bet". Nothing wrong with a flat bet(Im just saying we should use a reasonable /realistic wagering amount and betting regime that give us the best opportunity to hit our >=target win(whatever that may be).

Limiting the upper end is limiting the volatility. We need volatility to win. The casino controls our lower end (buyin loss). It is to our benefit to only allow them to win only one(1) buyin per bad shoe or session. We can (or at least have the potential) to win far more than our buyin, prior to losing said buyin in our very good sessions.

How much can I win?
How much am I prepared to lose?

Furthermore, we should have a very precise bet size to buyin to bankroll predetermined. Most other variables are a f(x) of these choices.
I also believe our preferred wagering regime should be predetermined. Each and every tier or step or dollar amount, with exact precision.

In other words if we want to win an amount equal to our buyin we should design a plan to target that. If we want to 20% of buyin then we should design a plan to target that.
If we want to win X units we should design a plan to precisely target that (X units),....etc

Im not saying we shouldnt have a minimum win goal(Im saying we shouldnt stop prematurely after a winning streak "unless we have hit our predetermined win goal" and that win goal IMO should not be limited and be >=Win goal).
 
Winning streaks (and their duration) are a phenomenon within themselves that I think are worthy of further study. What I don't know is when these W streaks will occur and when they will cease (and they certainly will). Its just we don't know their duration any more when in the middle of one than we did prior to sitting down at the table.

The casino has already determined the range for much of what we want to accomplish.
For example: $50min--$2000Max. This limits what we should predetermine in our wagering regime, win goals, loss limits,...etc.

Bottomline: Plan your play and play your plan. Just make sure we do it with maximum intentions, precision, and consistency.


More later on the above topics,

Hi ABG.
"...After all baccarat is a game of clusters, educated guesses based upon long term tests or actual situations or, best, all of the three.   ..."

     I like the wording in the above statement.
Do you have favorite clusters you like to watch for in anticipatory mode and then bet for continuance(or against)?

Thx in advance,

Hi klw--perfect post above and I concur.

Hi ABG. I agree with your 1-7 thoughts above. I will respond later (or in next couple days)as I had a couple Q/thoughts. Im prepping to get on road for a 3-day gaming trip so may not send Qs til Sunday.

Hope everyone has a nice weekend.