Hi PatternAnalys

re: Your post above.

"...IMAGINE this,

Tom and Harry,
play as a TEAM,
(and using Albalaha's hg mm method).

Tom will bet
"Player",
and Harry will bet "Banker"...

both bet with same X units capital.

When
"within expectation hit ", as always,
both will win around some % of X " ,
and when
the EXPECTED unexpected
"harsh extreme ",
hit...

say BANKER,
hit only 30/100,

then Harry will lose all the X,
but Tom,
will hit jackpot,
but when "factoring in",
Harry's HUGE losses, resulting in minimal losses,
that will easily, neutralised,
with next one or two round of bet...

What you think?
   ..."


My earlier comment:  "...Alot of creative ideas in  your post above.

Ill have to think on it as i may have a couple Q   ..."



     If Im understanding your idea my thinking is that (although it would indeed restrict the -effects of Variance on our buyin ), it would also restrict our potential to win (when we are in sync with the results). All the while exposing double(both players' wagers), to the H.E., with only 50% of the possible potential.

     *I play almost daily with a couple older gentleman that play something similar to what you mention. One day per week(typically Fri), they will spend the whole day going to several dif casinos to play their free play, food vouchers, match play,submit entries for weekend drawings, ....etc as they don't play weekends/ so they either use them or lose them. So their main objective is to get rated higher for comps with less $ at risk, while accomplishing the above.

Somewhat similar to what u mention above (at a $50min cas), they each start out with $50 each as opposing sides' wagers(p/b). Depending on which wins, one then wagers $55/the other player always stays at $50. They do a very diluted /slow neg pro in $5 increments.
Their main objective is to get higher comps at the $50+ level while only risking approx $5(2.50 each) or slightly more if they have to extend the negpro, and they attempt to make a few +dollars Net between them.
Though it wouldn't be my "cup-o-tea"  as it would be like watching paint dry. However, it does indeed appear to satisfy their objective.

Maybe there are other ways of viewing it that I haven't considered.


Thx again for posting/continued success,

Thx Alrelax--good points.






Continued Success,

Thx AsymBacGuy--good thread/ post.

Your sentence:
"... An average card distribution will more likely produce clustering win situations. The more we are considering winning clusters by strict parameters, higher will be the probability to win.  ..."

Can you clarify the phrase in bold? or give an example. thx



Continued Success,

Hi XXVV
Hope you are doing well. Any thing eventful for you lately?

As an addendum to albalahas post/inquiry above. 

After reading alot of your post a few months back I then went to many of the utube links you provided. I found both informative/THX.

I recall you mentioned in Fall 20' you were optimistic on an upcoming IPO but couldnt give us the ticker until it went public. Has that public offering indeed happened?

After reading your articles on crypto I started a daily monitoring on the following:

RIOT
LTC
DGB
BTC
ETH

I am still monitoring/have not purchased any of the above.


Q1

Re: Crypto markets. Do you have an opinion on what effect (if any) the money put into this asset class will affect the precious metals markets??? The physical as well as paper investments?

Q2
In recent months I seem to all of sudden be bombarded with emails from Paypal pushing PP account holders to purchase crypto via their PP account and hold in their accounts(with many restrictions).
     Any knowledge on this /personal opinions or thoughts??


Thx in advance.



Continued Success,

Thank you sir.

A Happy Fathers Day to u too.

Hi PatternAnalys

Thx for post.

Alot of creative ideas in  your post above.

Ill have to think on it as i may have a couple Q.



Continued Success,

Hi alb
Thx for responses

I agree it(pospro) may not win to infinity trials.

"...It doesn't win average shoes as well. It needs better than average times to win..."

     It depends. If one only wagers on part of the shoe then an average shoe may (or may not) be reflective of the part that received wagers.


I also like that no casino rules that require us to play 100% of our wins back through the casino.

They do not ask us to gamble at all. We do that and lose our money too apart from any coincidental win that we got from casino. This is true for 99% gamblers. We lose money in the endeavour of winning more and not for any guilt of winning money from casino.
[/i]

     I don't know what you mean.



negative progressions if used cautiously could surpass over 10 millions spins test on roulette while I did it with Ophis.   

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

         I did this 8 years back with one of the finest programmers on any forum, Ophis. We surpassed all data that we could put our hands over. Over 10 millions spins of roulette were beaten, mercilessly. We bet all sorts of bets from EC to single number. It was a controlled negative progressions, kind of brute force attack on all bets possible in roulette. You can feel it here:
https://betselection.cc/index.php?topic=808.0


      Thx for link as I read the first page or so today. Interesting sim. Good study by u/ophis. However, Im not sure how much is applicable to a real cas live table. It seems if it performed that well with roulette there are several other games I would hypothesize we would see superior results.  Just my quick thoughts as I have very minimal experience  w roulette so maybe it(roult) has some underlying traits within its overall  profile that lend itself to this type of wagering. Even with my lack of roulette gaming experience I would still hypothesize Bac p/b as well as Craps line wagers(e.g., Pl / dp), would perform better, all other variables being the same(due to a variety of reasons).
Good info and kudos to u/ ophis.


*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).


Well, probability to get a ppp or bbb is 1/8 roughly so in 72 hands of a shoe, one should get it 9 times averagely. You said you saw only one shoe of such kind where no PPP or BBB occurred, well it is actually rare and remote to happen frequently but if you get one or two such wins in a shoe, it should not be enough to get you a net profit.[/size]
[/i]

       Exactly



Continued Success,

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,