Hi Albalaha Thx for updates.

What type of bet spread do you anticipate needing(as a minimum?) for this latest system?

How many shoes do you consider a session?

thx,
kfb

Hi Albalaha

"..Since my current way of playing is looking for only one session a day, I can wait for 1.5SD below mean or worse to start from..."



Thank you

kfb

I agree AS.

A very good post/thread.



Continued Success To All,

Hi AsymBacGuy

Thx for clarifying RickK inquiry as I also had questions re:  the levels above that 2nd tier if one is losing after the first tier.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with your concluding comments on the 7-tier method:

AsymBacGuy

Math aspects

Even though we could be the worst bac guessers in the universe, per every 7-hand cycle bet our winning probability will be 72.66% as among the possible 128 WL patterns, 93 of them will be winners and just 35 losers (as we'd stop the betting after getting a W amount overcoming Ls).

Notice that differently to a common martingale, those bets are less susceptible to the negative variance and table limits, as they are assessed by 7-hand same amount steps.

This system is so powerful and math wise that just 2 or 3 people playing as a team will get enormous profits, after all itlr a 72.66% probability cannot be wrong for long.

Anyway most players like to play on their own and it's easy to assume that this system could get the bets so high to make in jeopardy everyone's bankroll and peace of mind.

Therefore we want to introduce the "scale reduction" factor, an important strategic tool capable to control the variance and at the same time keeping the benefit of a math advantage.

_________________________________________________________

I guess it goes back to: What Is Ones Objective.

In other words how do we want to slice our buyin, how often can we tolerate losing buyin, how much do we want to earn as a f(x) of buyin, as a f(x) of bankroll,...etc.

Anyway most players like to play on their own and it's easy to assume that this system could get the bets so high to make in jeopardy everyone's bankroll and peace of mind.


I think we can expect a majority of  Negpro methods will eventually escalate bets too high (reach Tmax, bust buyin,...etc) --its just that this particular method seems to escalate immediately. However, at first glance I do agree it will handle most shoes by the 2nd or 3rd stage. So the abrupt increase in wager size will in all likelihood be less damaging to buyin than we would initially guess. My main reservation would be not knowing if that really bad (-3.5SD) shoe was the very first one.

I like the beginning stages and the idea of 1/7ths at the initial level. However, it abruptly shifts from a low/slow curve to the trajectory of a rocket.

I've never played this method  so just a quick thoughts/opinion. If I was required to do a similar Negpro my personal preference would be to add a few more tiers to that 7-wager Level 1, and  prior to the recoup-or-throw the towel in  stage(s) .

How many Tiers? Levels? This is where it gets back to my initial sentence:

What Is Ones Objective.

Asym, do you play a similar approach. Do you have any data from others that have played it? ROI?

How would you improve it?

Many Thanks,



Its not how fast you win, its how well you win fast

Hi Albalaha
Thx as always for offering your opinions.

re:your previous statements:

"...That is why -1.5 SD or worse could work as a valid and helpful trigger my way. .."

"...In a normal EC session, I do not expect more than -1.5SD though..."


Was there a particular reason why u chose : (-1.5 SD) for your trigger, instead of let say (-1.0 SD or say -0.5 SD)?
thx

Hi Albalaha

Alb:
That is why -1.5 SD or worse could work as a valid and helpful trigger my way.

     Agreed. Potentially it could help as a trigger. Though I think u will agree it would also depend on where in the shoe the deficit(-1.5sd) was triggered. For example, lets say at hand 20 vs  hand 60. The deficit side may indeed start accelerating in its attempt to catch up. However, regardless of how fast it is closing the gap, may simply run out of time(too little remaining distance to make up the deficit completely),...etc, in that same shoe.

     Alrelax also speaks of this often in his writings as it is his opinion re: side deficit. (re: sides: often desire to do a correction "snap back" once they reach a deficit of 10ish or the seldom 20ish, total score deficit). I agree and do indeed watch for this when I see a side creep ahead by a >=8 count (especially if it wasn't due  to single long runs of say 6-8 streak). Plus, as mentioned above it could have different implications if it occurred in first 10-15 decisions vs at say hand 60-70.

     I think these larger SD side deficits often sneak up on players. I know I've been guilty of suddenly looking back at my card and surprised to realize one side just increased its lead to 12(though it occurred gradually with 4-2,3-1,..etc type surges).

Alb:
Getting only 16 hits in 80 trials is over -5.2 SD and as rare as next to impossible.


     Indeed, and one of the reasons I like a pospro--it automatically omits(i.e., limits wager# or $) the extended long streaks of incorrect bet placement.

Alb:
Any other trigger one might suggest?
     I like your triggers above as a f(x) of Variance/think they are reasonable for the profile of Bac. However, I also think one should predetermine how long we want to  chase. IOW , do we enter the battle til victory or death--OR-- do we consider retreat as an option at some future stage.

Continued Success,

     

Thx Albalaha

Your answer (-6SD), would certainly deplete a few players' buyin.

In a normal EC session, I do not expect more than -1.5SD though.
     I agree -1.5--2SD isn't that uncommon (within a shoe). I find that most of my multi-day trips are often required to endure the worst (-SD) stint in two consec shoes. I most often do a pospro so either abandon(and wait for easier battle), or abandon that shoe out of neccessity(busted buyin).


thx

Hi Albalaha
As always thx for your timely replies.

I know you have spent years studying live bac data. My questions:

A) Per lets say a <=10,000 decision random sample  what is largest extreme (-) variance u have seen with live table outcomes (e.g., -5.2SD, -4.8, -5.9,..etc)? Choose either side P or B for our discussion.

B) ""   "" (+)Variance u have seen (e.g., +5.2sd,...etc)?

C) Do you typically see both extremes within the same sample approach similar levels(e.g., one side lets say reaches an apex of  -5.0sd and the other side  lets say had a maximum spread +4.9sd )?

     "OR"  do you more often see one side take off in the lead and the other never really draw even after the first couple thousand decisions?
   



Many Thanks,

Thx AsymBacGuy for elaboration.

What are the original BP sequences capable to get long and univocal both original and derived outcomes per every shoe dealt?

Just two.

Long BP chops and long consecutive streaks, both being quite unlikely to happen.

     I agree. Yet that is what a majority of players are primarily waiting for in every shoe. IMO the tote board design contributes alot to this pursuit and anticipation.  It would be interesting to see the change in betting patterns/habits if all of a sudden the design of the tote board changed from the Up-down/L-R layout that is currently utilized.


Thus imo it's not about how much the chopping propensity come out but about how many times it will come out per every shoe played.

     Good statement.


Thx as always,

Thx Albalaha

re: "I use extreme variance management to ward off the worst possible..."
   
     Do you also ward off the best possible to the exact same level??
Lets say (e.g., -4SD to +4SD),  OR  are u more likely to do a predetermined setup such as : (-4SD to +2SD, ....etc )  ??  Other?

thx,kfb

Hi Albalaha

How many of you go for a trigger to start bet?

     I do though I don't view my trigger(s) as being causal to the outcomes. One thing(trigger) I generally do when I sit down at a new shoe and immediately post-cut. I like to wait for the outcomes to hit the other side/back to orig outcome (as a minimum wait), prior to placing my first wager. E.G., PPBP, with the third P being a trigger to consider placing a wager going forward.

Nothing scientific or projective about it. Simply a way as to not allow the cut to dictate the first few outcomes at a short-term stage where results are random and more difficult to discern(at least for me). Mostly due to the simple fact we don't have any intel at that point. Of course I would be first to agree that most anything we do as an attempt to tame undesirable variance will also dilute the desirable variance,...etc.


Do you think it useful/helpful?

     My perception is Yes, as it helps with my above objective. Though may or may not increase my hit/miss ratio.
IMO anything we do to reduce number of hands wagered at random is beneficial. At least for me, I don't have any perceived +ev strategies that would help on the first hand following the cut(especially in cas that don't show the burn cards). If required to wager that first post-cut hand I might be slightly more inclined to put it on P.


In my humble opinion and observation, it doesn't change probability further but it could be utilized to ward off the worst possible probabilities and if we take multiple triggers together and their net total impact, I found it helpful logically and probability wise too. We should not expect any in built advantage with any trigger or flat bet win with it.

     I agree in that most triggers won't change probability. However, they could possibly make us enter a wager when a W is perceived to be more probable. Also, as u mention above it could help ward off(side step) a negative cluster of outcomes, thus , potentially preserving bullets until we are getting the best of it.

     re: Triggers, Im always reminded that a perceived beneficial trigger for my side of the wager has just created the exact opposite perception for approx 50% of my table mates(and vice versa).

Albalaha--what  are a couple of your favorite triggers to sidestep losing clusters?


Thx/Continued Success,

Good Day AsymBacGuy
Thx for your reply to my followup question.

Asym:
Hi KFB!

As Key cards I'm referring to 9s, 8s, 7s and 6s.

.Whenever no key cards are involved in the process, the propensity to get higher ITCPs remain the same at different degrees..."





     kfb initial followup question/statement:
     kfb:
     Respectfully, my opinion differs on this---OR--- maybe Im just not understanding what youre saying. Can u elaborate a
     little more on this sentence.


Asym:Btw, I'm interested to know your opinion about this, thanks in advance!

as.

   

     kfb

     IMO the propensity to get higher ITCPs does NOT remain the same and does indeed change if no key cards (6,7,8,9) were
     involved in the process.

     My initial thought was that lets say : KCR=KeyCardRemaing = x, and Total Cards Remaining(TCR)=y , then our kcr/tcr
     ratio at this given point in the shoe is lets say x/y. We don't know exactly the numerical value of x or y. However, the next
     hands' cards are A,B,C,D. You/I are at the table together and had both just departed to the restroom and upon our return
     asked the dealer: How many cards were dealt in that most recent hand? Four. We follow up with : Did cards A,B,C,or D
     have a value of 6,7,8, or 9?  Dealer: No.

     Thus my aforementioned statement was that although we don't know the values for ABCD(ignore which side won or any
     other implications),
     we do know that our KCR/TCR=x/y ratio has changed from x/y  to x/y-4, and we also obviously can't be
    100% certain of how many, if any,  KCR remain(0,16,12...etc). 
     
     So my thinking is the propensity to get higher ITCPs does not remain the same and has indeed changed(albeit very
     slightly). Obviously many other factors we could take into consideration but for simple illustrative purposes that is the gist
     of my previous inquiry.


Continue Success,

Hi Albalaha

Trick Question

I will raise my hand first and shall select option: B


That is, without saying "it depends", or  "what is the players objective", or "mr professor please clarify long run", "clarify earns averagely in average sessions" ...etc.


So my final answer: B


Continued Success,

Good Morning Albalaha

Thx for  your posts--Im watching your new project(millionaires plan) with interest/intrigue.

ALB:

"...To do this perfectly, I need a table limit of 1-1000 to be safest and surest but I would try to finalize it in a table limit of 1-100 too..."

     That bet spread is my dream scenario. I most commonly see $50--2k, with occasional 25-1k and 25-2k, occasionally travel to get a $50--5k,...etc.



"...to win at least 100 units per session with a risk of like amount of loss and probability to get a losing session should not be more than 20%. Once accomplished, nothing will be left for me but to play, play and keep playing fearlessly.
             It is a hybrid type MM (positive aided with negative progression) and could be trigger based. Playing with trigger will ensure this 80:20 win: loss sessions..."



     I like your ideas/ the implementation of 20% rule as I find that applicable to many things(gambling and nongambling alike).

     I utilize this metric (>=20%) quite often within a variety of PosPro wagering approaches. I like to set it as a my initial /lowest win (and session exit) stages, along with >=50% and >=100%, as i find it beneficial to set trailing stops and never leave a winning streak. 

To verbalize,  as I enter a session my thought process: "I think I can win >=20% of my buyin "first" as in "before" the casino
can win 100% of my buyin.  The best odds for me are obviously at the very beginning of the session when my balance is : -0-  .

In an even-chance game with weighted wagers I like our chances.


Continued Success to you Albalaha,

Hi AsymBacGuy

In your first post on 3/30 you state:

"...Normally card distributions will produce "more likely" back to back ITCPs, as the average key card distribution itlr will make a huge impact over the final two-card point results (not final results!).
It's true that key cards could easily combine with a second low or worthless card, anyway itlr it's way more likely to get a winning point whenever a key card had fallen on that side than to face the opposite situation.
Whenever no key cards are involved in the process, the propensity to get higher ITCPs remain the same at different degrees, meaning it's restricted within measurable (then exploitable) terms...."

To clarify: When you say "KEY CARDS" do you indeed mean 8/9 as in main cards to keep P from drawing. OR Do you mean key cards as in side-favoring cards such as 6/4  that may or may not keep P from drawing? thx in advance .

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


AsymBacGuy: "...Whenever no key cards are involved in the process, the propensity to get higher ITCPs remain the same at different degrees..."

kfb:
     Respectfully, my opinion differs on this---OR--- maybe Im just not understanding what youre saying. Can u elaborate a little more on this sentence.

Thx/ Continued Success,