Hi ABG:
"... BTW, which kind of tables (classic, EZ, etc) do you prefer to bet at?..."
    If I had to choose I would say probably prefer EZ vs others. Mainly due to that's what my cas market seems to offer(6 deck mostly).

ABG:"... A warm thanks to everyone who had the patience to read my section, for some reasons I'm stopping to post anymore about baccarat (maybe as we were banned to play at a couple of premises)..."

    Thanks for all your research and work along with the many posts on the forum. Hopefully your sabbatical will be short.

Continued Success,

Thx 8OR9
I like your analogies to the stocks/futures markets. I've seen other gamblers even compare Bac to sports handicapping. A lot of similarities. I know little about sports handicapping, so I find it more helpful to use the stock market and banking analogies.

re: Stock Market. I find many comparisons between Bac and the markets. Besides drawdown I also see many similarities with compounding and interest spinoff.

I view our Bac bankroll as similar to ones overall holdings in the markets. Our allotted buyins would be analogous to ones individual stocks. Lets say we have 30 stocks(buyins)in our overall portfolio. Lets say one stock tanks(drawsdown)/loses 40% of its value(So one buyin has drawndown 40%).

Providing we had near the same amount of our portfolio weighted for each of 30 stocks, then if that one stock drops 40% it should  have little effect on our overall investment(bankroll). Obviously if our buyin drops 40% in a session we shouldn't add to that losing investment(just as we likely would not buy more of a stock that suddenly tanked 40%), or I wouldn't.

I like the example you provided and I agree with the drawdown definition. However, I treat my Bac drawdown slightly different.

For example, let say I buyin with $2K which is approx 35 units(approx 80% of my casino market only has tables at $50--2K), with a couple casinos offering $25-1K, and a couple offering $50or100--$5K). So its really easy to generalize to the various increments/keep base unit size proportional in #/ to respective buyin.

E.G.,

If my $2000 buyin wins +400 in the first session(of that $2k buyins' lifespan), I don't change my buyin in my next session as it still= $2k/same base unit size.

Lets say the second session(of that $2K buyins lifespan) has a net loss: -400, so now that $2000 has drawndown and now only has a value of $1600(-20%).

My third session for that buyin will start with the $1600(with same original base unit size), as that  +$400 W from session  #1 was placed in the W stack/never rejoins that parent buyin.

    In that third session for that buyin lets say I make a net of +600(so I now have 2200:1600+600). However, this is irrelevant in my big scheme of things(I simply put that excess $200, (2200-2000), into the stack with the +$400 from the W in buyin session #1.

This keeps going until that $2K buyin has died(And it will). So I could actually buyin with just a few hundred dollars remaining from the initial $2K and still make a comeback(Last week I had a session produce a net win of +$2700(so the 2700 went into the W stack and my MonMgmt)/ the very next session the same $2k buyin had a drawdown to $500(-1500), made a comeback to 1200 in the next session, then the next session it went to -0- (it died).

I find it helpful to have discipline on the drawdowns(The upticks are easy). I never rebuy into the same shoe when I lose the buyin completely. My thesis is that managing our drawdowns will allow us to maximize the upticks(which will be at a >=(+SD) at or above the (-SD) of our drawdowns. I don't limit the upticks. This is one of the main reasons I mostly prefer a pos progression wagering regime.

What I find is that unless I get completely whacked in the very first session(for that buyin), then I never lose 100% of that specific buyin(Which is more important than it may seem),

(In the example above it earned $600/then lost, so that $2k still produced $600 prior to its demise).
Sometimes it may earn >= 300--500% , or more,  prior to its drawdown to -0-.

For me personally it keeps the emotions at an even keel (though the drive home is more enjoyable after an uptick(s) vs a day where I had a drawdown or drawdown(s) to -0- .

*I often pat myself on the back (after a drawdown or bust) in which I leave that shoe or session. Drawdowns and busts are inevitable.


Thx again 8OR9


Continued Success To All,

Hi All,

Thanks ABG for your reply to my Q .

ABG resplied:

Personally I very rarely play at EZ bac tables, so I can't tell you about the first attack, yet it could happen that I'll bet P side simultaneously wagering a 'lucky 6'.

The reason is because 'Lucky 6' is a well more likely possibility than F-7, at the same time knowing that Lucky 6 tables provide a better negative edge at Player bets (1.24% vs 1.46%).


I agree on your assessment for Lucky6 and can see the merits for wagering P/Lucky6. I seldom see a table with Lucky6 (or maybe I simply don't notice), and seldom if ever wager it. So good to know your thoughts above should I encounter that situation.

Re: B /F7--I agree that it is not mathematically sound and ITLR an increased HE to an already -EV wager. My main reason for not habitually wagering the Bwager coupled with the F7 is the hedging effect on the B bet(I can't win both but can lose both). However, a situation where I do sometimes is when I have pressed my B wager to a higher level and I don't want to lose-a-win, or push on a win. I will then wager the F7 for an amount equal to "my" chips in the wager or maybe so an F7 win =66% of that pressed up wager,...etc..

Of course, there could be times we perceive or calculate that F7 has a higher probability of showing/ that could skew all of the above probabilities in the players favor(or at least make less disadvantaged), as long as one doesn't wager it too often.


Continued Success,

Hi ABG

ABG: "...Meaning that in the vast majority of the times we shouldn't put ourselves in the position to 'ensure' our main B bet by wagering a side bet.
This is a strong long term EV- move.   ..."

     I agree for the most part.

     What are your thoughts re: The same scenario with P/Panda8 (or P with F7)??

Thx in advance

p.s.
I also like the color and hue that you selected. A nice clean/professional look.



Continued Success,

Good essay and real(What really happens in realtime at the live table with ones' real cash).

One of several topics(Drawdown) that jumped out at me /I find very important.

alrelax
(in part)

"...Drawdown

The importance of drawdown is extremely large. Do not discount the importance, value or advantage it will allow you to have. As you will lose singular, multiple and numerous wagers in-between your wins, you must have a buy-in large enough to survive the downside you are subject to. ..."

     This is extremely important. I observe many players almost daily that cannot clearly define "their" objective. Thus, they have little chance of defining "how-many-tries" do I typically need to reach "my" objective.
Sometimes I will have a player ask me something like: How do you bet, or how do you press,...etc(seems like its always following a sizeable win).

I never get questions like: Hey Mr. Fu, how did you manage to only drawdown 40% with such a low hit rate,...etc??? . OR
Mr. Fu that was a really horrible shoe (-4.5SD), and I notice you only busted your buyin once (and didn't rebuy into that shoe). What is your money management system???
*I drawdown nearly every shoe(sometimes 40=70% of buyin or bust, prior to achieving win.

I've learned that any time I get any kind of question I immediately follow up(prior to answwering their Q) with : "What is your main objective"? if the person cannot clearly define their objective (e.g., win 20% of buyin before losing said buyin, win $300 a day on a 5K buyin,earn 100% of buyin prior to losing buyin,...etc), then I will just respond with a generic/encouraging phrase.
I realize it does not matter what I suggest they will not reach their goal because they have not clearly or self-defined what they are trying to accomplish(their precise goal).

My thinking is it doesn't matter what our individual goal is(it will vary as much as the different type of players height,weight,skin color,shoe size,...etc). The key is we should all clearly define our goal, define how many tries we need to reach our respective goal more times than not, design our monetary system to reach that goal with the greatest efficency(bankroll:buyin:bet size,style of wagering(press,regress,flat), AND then: stick with it, with the greatest of discipline, and don't let temporary emotions alter our approach. If we truly have an advantage it will show if we just give it the proper number of tries.

Continued Success,

Thanks Victor/Glen

Awesome

Thx great post. Several solid "real-time" , live , "real-table" events and examples.
I find several of these topics critical to winning / will comment more tomorrow.

Ill touch on just one of the several topics you mention.

*I find the example of six wagers vs 3 wagers a very important concept(i.e., bet size-to-buyin size) to winning more than we lose. Meaning that I feel we sometimes must win more than our buyin in single sessions(For we shall lose our buyin at times regardless ones skill set).

My thesis is that one needs to really focus on their posprogression (and bet size) at wager#1 and wager#2 as that determines the compounding % we receive,(& how quick we get our monies back to our stack),  when we are fortunate enough to select >=4-5 winners in a row, and who knows one may occasionally put together a 7-12 WIAR(wins-in-a-row) streak.

More later,

Thx alrelax for addendum example.
I agree as I quite frequently see one side get ahead by 10ish or so (usually early sections as u suggest), before reverting back(trailing side starts nicking into the leaders lead). I play a lot of 6-deck shoes and seldom see the 20ish difference. Obviously in these situations the trailer simply runs out of track and doesn't have room to catch up and finishes at a large deficit(though significantly less than 20), "typically".



Continued Success,

Thx Vic/Glen
Im looking forward to upgrades.



Continued Success,

Good Day Mates.

An addendum thought to the above posts.

Be Cautious About Following Another Players' Bet:
One must be cautious about following another players' bet as we may be following a follower.
So what we could perceive as going with the consensus at the table is actually just the opinion of one single player. That one single player may or may not have any more insight than flipping a coin.

Often I can see other players watching a certain player and as soon as they place their wager they will do the same wager (i.e., follow). Often the player being watched (followed) is due to several factors: Appears to be winning, has won his last couple bets, maybe has largest stack, looks smart, well dressed,,...etc.

So lets say there six of us at the table in spots 1-6. If Im in #6 and notice #5 player places a huge wager that's significantly larger than their typical size/ I decide to consider following and think #5 sees something.  Then I also glance at players #1-4 and see all of them are wagering (P), and think it's a 100% consensus. So I too shall wager (P). "How could I logically go against a consensus and all these experts and their independent selection"??
However, what I couldn't recognize is that in actualality:  (player 5 was following 4 was following 3 was following 2 was following the inebriated and smart-looking guy in spot #1).

Im not suggesting never ever follow another player. Im just suggesting we should be cautious.


Continued Success,

Hi all,

Alrelax: "... People do see things differently. Especially at the Bac table.  However, I also know they do agree on many things. Influence, balance of predictability, desires and many other factors are of course, different and individualistic to each of us. ..."

I have often wondered what it would be like if after every decision at the Bac table we could see each other's thoughts or thought bubbles (You know the little bubbles above a person's head depicting their thoughts as in cartoons or movies, etc.).

For example, if six players let's assume three guessed correct/ three incorrect. It is my opinion the three players guessing correct (and incorrect) would never be thinking with the same logic as to why they were right or wrong,...etc, though they agreed on what the result would be (P or B), their logic and the cognitive processes utilized in making the selection would seldom if ever be the same.
Regardless of one's modus operandi, one will still appear accurate (or inaccurate)  approx 50% of the time.
Just my opinion.


Continued Success,

Thx ABG. A lot of good points(as always).
ABG:
in part,

"...This is a very simplified list to look for:

1) Consider baccarat ranges just in terms of 1s, 2s and 3s. An exception is displayed later.

2) When in doubt or unless your strategy dictates to bet B to form or limit some patterns, do not bet a dime at Banker side as you'll be 11.62:1 underdog to cross through an asymmetrical hand favoring B).
It's true that it's more likely to encounter long B streaks than long P streaks but itlr such attempts are worthless.

3) Besides side bets, the only edge we can rely upon to beat baccarat is exploting the 'clustering effect'.
Math 'experts' will teach us that this effect will be proportionally distributed with opposite (losing) situations but they are deadly wrong.

4) The clustering effect must be exploited either by a simple 1-level back-to-back property or by concidentally betting an already moderate or long 'same events' sequence. Of course at both scenarios the main aim to look for is just one win (what baccarat pros do).

5) Many sections of the shoe are unplayable and this doesn't necessarily mean that after a given series of unplayable sections a kind of favourable opportunites will arise.
Do not rule out the possibility that cards are so whimsically arranged to get few clustered profitable events and the idea to bet on such 'unwanted' scenarios is out of order.

6) Always take into account the doubles or 3s pace of apparition considered at various portions of the shoe and in relationship of their average final value.
Of course singles make a huge impact of such doubles or 3s gaps.

7) A corollary of the #1 point, it's a kind of another invincible plan:
Set up two different random walks (SRW) applied at streaks clusters of precise lenght.
SRW #1 bets toward doubles and triples (exact triples) clustered at a given level, so any 3+ streak is a sort of boundary.
SRW #2 bets toward exact triples and 4 streaks clustered at a given level getting as 'boundary' any 4+ streak.
..."

Re: #2 above and specifically this part. Can you give an example or clarify/thx in advance.

"2) When in doubt or unless your strategy dictates to bet B to form or limit some patterns, do not bet a dime at Banker side as you'll be 11.62:1 underdog to cross through an asymmetrical hand favoring B).

Continued Success,

Good day to all my bac comrades

alrelax
in part
"...But if you really desire to find a decent wagering method that has control built into it, the following has done extremely well for me over the past years.

1-3-2-6 or 1-3-2-4.  Coupled with my 1/3rd, 1/3rd, 1/3rd, application of your separated wins and playing that out...."

In my mind the following is the absolute most important. Because we will all win some and lose some regardless of our chosen wagering regime. The wagering regimes are as varied as the players:
1/3rd, 1/3rd, 1/3rd, application of your separated wins and playing that out.
that's the Bottomline regardless of our chosen wagering regime. In other words doNOT rebet all of our win monies back through. Only win our won money once.

ABG:
in part
"...I have an idea in order to lower the unit disboursement.
Instead of using full amounts, why not adding a proportional percentage your Plan dictates?
So instead of 3, let's add a 30%,  20% for 2 and so on.
Now your bets are:
$100, $130, $120 and $160.

Imo surviving takes a primary role over the urge of winning fast. ..."

ABG--i agree with your proposal IF ones goal is to "survive". I think the key is "What is ones objective". re: survival--albalaha did a lot of research in this area and many of his post in past couple years would lean toward your suggestion(pressing/regressing a much smaller %), which indeed will help one "survive". For those interested just search the forum as he (albalaha) was nice enough to share years of research in this area of study (i.e., surviving huge swings in Variance)

My opinion differs a little from asymbacguy general suggestion above as although I do indeed want to survive and give myself a fair number of attempts. I also know that I will easily see (-2SD or +2SD) sway in results in my average session size of decisions. My objective leans more toward: If I see (say -2.5-- -3.5SD-- 5SD,...etc) then my buyin is being stressed and I will bust (but only lose ONE buyin). However,if (when) I am fortunate enough to see lets say >= +1.5SD-- +2.5SD , then I will make >= 1.0 buyins and maybe even >3-5 buyins occasionally , on a single buyin .

It obviously is nice when I receive the latter scenario prior to the first.

To each their own

Continued Success,kfb

"Only win our won money once"

Hi Toby

I have not tried it.

Arbitrage betting tips

Keeping track of your transactions is advisable.
Have many accounts with a variety of bookmakers.
Creating a spreadsheet to monitor your transactions is a good idea.
Use a professional surebet finder software.
Another piece of advice is to double check the odds before placing both sides of the bet.
It is very common for odds to fluctuate, particularly in a popular event or if an event is about to start.
The margins can be very tight when arbitrage betting and potential profit can soon be wiped out by failing to spot a shift in price.


Continued Success,