Quote from: Albalaha on July 21, 2016, 04:20:26 AM
@Markteruya,
              This is not GF where you can speak anything. Being oversmart and speaking foul could land you in trouble here. If you think I have deleted any post of yours from my topic and that is very important for you to talk of, start a new topic of your own. In this forum, none is allowed to forcibly enter other's bathroom and piss there. None is exception to this, even me.

Didn't realize you considered the thread your bathroom.

QuoteI personally know of 3 players using a 2 win parlay system and  all 3 are winning well for the last year

Makes sense but bloody hard, I explored it some years back, what bet selection (guessing?) the best I came up with was recording Baccarat results using columns of 3's and betting FLD on the top line left to right, it was positive overall.

Quote from: Albalaha on July 21, 2016, 02:40:08 AM
Nice suicidal way to play.

Wayyy you deleted my post in your blog harsh session about the harsh treatment you are getting over at GF.

Nice suicidal way to make an entry on a gambling forum Ali. 

You can't get away with things over there, like you can here.  I'm surprised soxfan hasn't joined up yet, he'd be drunk as a skunk and out of cashews in no time, the entertainment is boss.  There is a tab linking the site on the home page of this forum (hey hey)..

That was my typo (fixed), obviously you can stretch those progressions as far as you want.  Also the 'correct' Fibo starts 1-1-2 not 1-2

Quote from: Blue_Angel on July 20, 2016, 04:55:22 AM
I cannot find the 11th harsh  session, where  is  it?

Dunno about HARSH session, certainly Ali is getting a HARSH time at GamblingForums.

They don't take kindly to scammers over there and are able to voice their opinion

Quote from: albertojonas on July 19, 2016, 11:15:57 PM
What would be the progression for back to back wins?

There are many (this is why the Gamblers Glen should be considered the library, no other site covered basically everything  )

Fibo 1-2-3-5-8-13-21-34-55-89-144

Sure Win (Ramblers method) 1-1-2-2-3-4-5-7-9-12-16-22-29-39-52-52-69

Carsch - 1-1-2-3-4-6-9-14-21-32

French Progression - 1-1-2-3-4-6-8

Carsch 31 variation - 1-1-2-2-4-4-8-8-16-16

Isn't it real easy to bet 28 number though, H/L plus the opposing Doz 

Quote from: Nickmsi on June 05, 2016, 02:12:32 AM
Mark said:
"What is required is a positive statistical option"

What if someone had a statistical option to yield an actual edge.

What criteria could we use to verify the claim?

What I had in mind when I made that comment, are the 4 column template options, they "generally" present 12 ways to win and 4 ways to lose.  So statistically you have a 3 to 1 ratio in your favor, with the risk of losing 4 bets when things don't work.  Leaving aside the case of wins v's losses as everything balances out, as there is no possible mathematical escape from a 50-50 resolve.  Hence why VDW had a balance of zero when all potential possibilities were considered.

So the perceived edge / criteria would be the 3/1 even 2/1 statistical expectation of a win over a series of bets, as well as avoiding 4 losses in a row when things don't work, as it puts too much strain on the players money management.   You'll find this a mathematically impossibility.

The glaring issue with VDW is it only offers a statistical 50% expectation of success over 512 columns (forget the zero balance, as this applies to every bet option).   However if VDW offered for argument sakes, 510 ways to win and only 2 ways to lose, therefore you had a statistical expectation of 256/1, I would say hey, go for it, it's gonna be a cold day in hell before you got hit, leaving aside the obvious problem in terms of progression.

QuoteIn testing VdW on 8 th spin (or 6th or 7th)... have you waited 7 spins and then place a bet if there was opportunity? All other spins were just watching?

"Virtual losses" not applicable in this case, because the statistical expectation is only 50% over a series of 9 bets.  Therefore the player only has no perceived advantage after any prior losses or column failure.

Compared to betting UnBalanced over Equilibrium with a 8 hand sequence, '186 winning columns v's 70 losing columns', the expectation which is proven mathematically is 72.7%, ditto Birthday Paradox Pairs.

Trust that makes sense...

It's impossible to predict when a side is going to win, regardless of card tracking, symmetrical hand counts / ratios or otherwise.

One could track Bank naturals v's bank wins via 5th card and gain a fair expectation that a 4 card card natural Bank is due, yet still not know precisely when it is going to happen until after the event, which makes it all superfluous.

I resurrect this, because it's always been hovering in the back of my mind, sitting at a table tracking / counting the Bank asymmetrical v's symmetrical hands, even knowing a shoe is rich in 8's and 9's, the punter still doesn't know the precise moment to bet, therefore unworkable.

I've played many a shoe where at the on-set (10~15 hands) you simply can't hope to get paid out unless your betting side has a  score of 8 or 9.  Every winning hand has a score or 8 or 9 and only after say 15 hands you start seeing sides winning via Barbecue, 1-Baccarat, 5-4 etc.   

In those circumstances were a shoe maybe rich in 8's and 9's (how rich is rich?), balanced ratio between Player and Banker wins, many 4th and 5th card draws.  Natural Bank is due!! When do you "go all in" on the Bank, answer is you can't.

The figures may be true in your first post, but so what, when you tracking criteria is 100% you can't hammer the Bank, too bad so sad if you do and the Player suddenly decides to go on even a 4 streak. Or do you wait until your criteria is met and wait for a 4P streak, lot of work required here, asymmetrical hand count, tracking of 8's and 9's and a 4P streak, then go all in, correct?     

In my opinion the answer is probably not.  If it's impossible to handle Birthday Paradox Pairs, or Equilibrium v's UnBalanced by themselves, then it is extremely doubtful this will be any different. Introducing more bet options can work both for the player and against the player. 

One method loses, only to be followed by a second option losing straight afterward, more losses pilled on top of another, don't wish too be negative, but this is the stuff that will happen in live play.  IMO what needs to be achieved here and for similar betting methods is a reduction of the 4 to 1 ratio.  Risking four bets to win once, all these options present the exact same "worst case scenario, ditto any 4 column template with it's 99% mathematical expectation.  Either reduce the potential losses when things go bad or improve the win count when things are in sync.

What is required is a positive statistical option and when things don't work, it doesn't cost you 4 losing bets each time it fails  That being the case I could only suggest placing virtual losses in front whatever option you decided to go with.  Also you have to consider "what exactly is the pattern that this loses against".  in this case, repeating two's is one of it's nemesis, which IMO should remove it from  consideration regarding Baccarat.

Anyway sqzbox trust you are well, it's been  while since we communicated.

Okay, I did some possible scenario testing;

First off, with all the losing columns and single unit winning columns the balance result was ZERO, as expected.

IMO is a waste of time testing data sources, for the simple reason the data is historic and is of no relevance to what you may encounter in live play, suffice to say guaranteed you won't encounter the same data you tested against at any gaming table, if offers nothing other than peace of mind to the beholder.   You are better off testing against "all possible scenarios"  you can achieve that by using truth tables.

For a given 9 hand sequence, 512 possibilities; 

8 columns produced 4 losing bets, a 1.56% chance of that happening
12 columns produced 3 losing bets, 2.34% of that happening
56 columns produced 2 losing bets, 10.94% of that happening
And there were 256 columns producing a 1 unit profit, 50% (less B tax)


In comparison, a 8 hand sequence betting that there will not be 4 of one-side and 4 of the other (equilibrium), carries a 72.7% statistical expectation to succeed (trust me when I say it simply doesn't pan out like this at the tables, it never does).   

For 256 possible options the chance of losing 4 bets worst case (as in BBBBPPPP or PPPPBBBB) for a 8 hand sequence is 2, so the % ratio is exactly the same as the VDW option. I think there is a marginal advantage as I'm only seeing 252 columns where no winning bet is achieved out of a possible 256 options (my figures could be wrong, too time consuming to double check), suffice to say not a recommended bet option regardless. 

I think The Birthday Paradox Pair method again was marginally superior given there are fewer losing columns, unable to confirm as I no longer have the data, plus you have various ambiguous modes, again risk making 4 bets to win 1 bet, too bad when you walk into back to back no-matching pair grids.

Not wishing to rain on anybody's parade, would like to post more promising news but "it is what it is", some days you'll win, other days you'll lose. 

You could restart after any winning bet, this changes everything both good and bad I expect..

Hi Nick

Thanks for the updated spreadsheet. 

I'll test further maybe later in the week.  I kinda of have an inkling with this as I've tested and played Eirescots Birthday Paradox Matching pairs at length also betting for UnBalanced V's Equilibrium over a given hand sample (6, 8 & 12).  The former can be so frustrating when it doesn't work, even though it has (suppose too) maths on its side, losing 4 bets on the bounce in a given 8 hand sequence, then losing 3 winning 1 and losing another 4, there is no way back unless you're incorporating something else.

Those methods which including this one are all non-random approaches, but present the same issue.  "Single win v's many losses" risk, I suppose the ultimate would be a betting method that is statistically expected to win more often than it loses but only involves a single bet :-)   

Repeating two's which it appears this option doesn't fair so well with, can be frequent within  the game of Baccarat.  I'll report back.

Do appreciate it's a work in progress and worth nutting out to see where it leads... 

For now....

Quote from: Nickmsi on June 02, 2016, 02:39:18 PM
I have attached a VDW Baccarat Tracker.

This tracker will automatically tell you what your next bet is based on the AP to be completed.

You don't have to do anything but enter "P" or "B" in Column A and if there is a bet it will show up in Column L.

Enjoy

Nick

Hi Nick

Is the coding for this correct?

Because PBBBBBBBB returns +1 unit, whereas BPPPPPPPP returns zero bets?

[attachimg=1]

Also this doesn't look promising;

[attachimg=2]

I started testing against a set a 9 column binary tables (512 possibilities), half that to 256 same result.

Have to admit the results were rather poor, unless I am missing something.  I was feeding a row at a time into your attached Baccarat checker, first thing I noticed was it is geared to return a single win per column of 9 hands, which won't compensate for runs like this;

B   B   B   B
B   B   B   B
P   P   P   P
B   B   B   B
B   B   B   B
P   P   P   P
P   P   P   P
B   B   P   P
B   P   B   P
-3   -3   -3   -3


It can get worst;

B   B
B   B
P   P
P   P
B   B
B   B
P   P
P   P
B   P
-4   -4

I was left with the impression it relies heavily on a 3 streak somewhere in a 9 hand sequence, sure other patterns provide a single win, bulk of my testing was looking for a streak of 3. 

Sure I could restart after any win, but the flip side is, as it appears not to like repeating two's, is long doubles will consume your bankroll making it impossible to recoup if you were flat betting.  I don't profess to fully understand it, so apologies if I have skipped something, as I say all I did was feed binary possibilities into your excel sheet and did not complete the exercise as initial showings very poor.

Having said that and as I am use to working with columns, this is my rookie observation, personally I am not a fan of having columns of different lengths because you snared a win after 3 hands, I personally prefer to stick with columns of 9.  The tester sheet places no further bets after any initial win, so in a best case scenario you can only win 1u per round robin of 9 hands, the worst case is that you can lose 4u (this is on par with Eirescots "BP pair" method and frankly doesn't work), yet it appears the number of winning columns v's losing columns does not compensate for this from my testing.

It lacks the option for more wins per 9 hand sequence than the tester Baccarat sheet is currently delivering.  The flip-side, obviously would be, win a unit then lose a few units in any 9 hand sequence, maybe only gun for additional wins after say a 9 hand column has produced a -3 or -4 outcome.

Interesting though, cheers for posting......

Well done Mr Bayes, worth the wait

The typing lock ups are even worst than before

Quote from: from100 on March 17, 2016, 09:00:08 AM
Could this font be a little bigger, for us Seniors?

When I zoom-in, then all becomes different and Avatar goes up, etc... So, not practical.

Why can't you increase the font of your browser?