Our members are dedicated to PASSION and PURPOSE without drama!

Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - Mike

#31
Quote from: Albalaha on June 08, 2018, 02:46:13 AM
---Mike

Baccarat is a game of independent trials. Do not assert wrong things.

Al,

Not quite. Cards drawn from a shoe aren't replaced, so "strictly speaking" Bacc isn't a game of independent trials in the way that roulette is, because obviously cards not replaced cannot contribute to the probability of the NEXT hand. Therefore the probabilities are not fixed but change as cards are removed. But it turns out that this can't give you an advantage in the way that it does in Blackjack, where cards not being replaced can lead to favourable probabilities for the player. From the Wizard of odds FAQ :

QuoteOn baccarat, are the odds perpetual (as in dice and roulette) or do the odds change as cards are dealt out of the shoe (as in blackjack)? I know that it is not at all probable, but is it mathematically possible for the Banker to win every single hand in the baccarat shoe?

Anonymous

In an effort to debunk betting systems I used to say that the past does not matter in gambling. However once in a while somebody would rebuke me by saying that the past does matter for card counters, which is true. So now I say that in games of independent trials, like roulette and craps, the past does not matter. As I show in my baccarat appendix 2 a shoe rich in small cards favors the player and a shoe rich in large cards favors the banker. Thus, in baccarat, there is an extremely slight disposition that the next outcome will be the opposite of the last. So, yes, the odds do change in baccarat as the cards play out, but only to a very small extent. For all practicable purposes the game is not countable. I do not know if the banker could win every hand but I speculate that the answer is yes.
https://wizardofodds.com/ask-the-wizard/baccarat/


QuoteFurther, which math book did you refer who taught you that roulette being a game of independent trials, unbeatable?

I didn't say it was unbeatable, only that it's unbeatable using patterns and triggers, trends etc, precisely because trials are independent.

QuoteWho told you that I am looking for past outcomes to determine my way of playing?

I know you don't do that, but you DO believe that it's possible to win using progressions. I argue that progressions can't help unless you have an edge, because all they do is increase the variance (both positive and negative).

QuoteHave you heard of "the law of large numbers"? It is a law and not a "theory", I hope you know the difference between the two.

How does the LLN give you an edge or help you to win?

QuoteWhich physics book told you that you can get an edge in roulette with any study of physics? Winning roulette with physics is a theory and not a law.

I use "physics" broadly, which includes bias. No physics book needed; you don't need a physics PhD to understand that if a wheel is defective in some way the odds have the potential to be in your favour. Then there is Visual Ballistics. Apart from my own experience, there are independent studies which confirm that it works. See https://www.insidescience.org/news/physics-knowledge-can-tilt-odds-roulette

Of course there is no "law" that you will win at roulette using physics, because it's an APPLICATION of physics. Skill and a lot of hard work is necessary, and it's getting harder all the time, but there is POTENTIAL to get a real edge, unlike the case of trends, patterns and triggers.

#32
Trends are meaningless in a random game, and can only be identified after the event.

#33
Yes the second quote was from Albalaha (reply #38), and my following reply was addressed to him, sorry for the confusion.
#34
Quote from: alrelax on June 06, 2018, 10:24:35 PM
To myself, all the published numbers mean, is that all the total amount of money dropped into the casinos tables and an approximate deduction of chip inventory that was tracked to cashing out against that drop in general, equals that amount of money realized by the casino collectively from its players.  It has nothing to do with individual players doing an above average management of their own protocols and events they experienced.  As far as the industry statistics resulting from people or groups of researchers figuring out what certain games produce, in the way of '-HAs', I don't dispute those figures, just don't see any real use for them at the bac table or any other table by an individual in gauging his play, strategy, or attempting to respond to an opportunity that might be presenting itself or to a situation that would harm him.  Events, opportunities, advantages that are positive or even negative, cannot be gauged and are not regulated by the statistical outcomes of the games to correlate to the percentages produced by tests and histories.

Glen,

It's evident from your post that you don't really understand variance and what it means (look up "standard deviation"). Nobody is saying that an individual player's results will conform precisely to the predicted HA in a playing session, but you are right in that statistics only tell you something about the collective, not the individual. However, you appear to have it backwards; it's not that the HA is somehow derived from the stats; the HA is built into the game and the stats are just a reflection of it, so EVERY player has to contend with the house edge, even if they have a favourable edge themselves.

Of course an individual has control over his actions, but the issue is, does controlling yourself make any difference to the outcomes in an essentially random game? Sure you need self-control, but it's useless without an edge, and you can only find one if the game is not entirely random.

QuoteIn gambling with proven house edge, a man called Thorpe came and changed theIn gambling with proven house edge, a man called Thorpe came and changed the perception of only house can win, forever. Wake up guys.

Again, you're just demonstrating lack of understanding of probability. Blackjack is not a game of independent trials. Technically, Baccarat isn't either, but Thorpe also investigated the possibility of getting an edge in Bacc and found there was none, and of course Roulette IS a game of independent trials, so counting past outcomes is pointless (but you MAY be able to get an edge using physics).
#35
Quote from: Albalaha on June 07, 2018, 05:02:06 AM
People used to laugh when the concept of airplane was first conceived.

I guess it was just a matter of time before the Wright brothers showed up in this thread. :P

This is a non sequitur

"People said nobody will ever make a machine that can fly, they were wrong. Therefore gambling systems work!"

QuoteIf you know that only house can win, what the hell are you doing on a gambling forum?

Al,

Nobody is saying that only the house can win, especially not Xander, who has made a very good living from the casinos for over 30 years. But he hasn't done it by using progressions. or waiting for the right patterns in past results.

There are many reasons why someone might post on a gambling forum, one of which might be to criticise wrong ideas and explain why certain strategies can't work.
#36
Gizmo,

I only mentioned proof because you did :

Quote from: Gizmotron on June 04, 2018, 12:36:05 PM
Many here won't want to call it an edge. But if it is a proven advantage they will have to live with that outcome anyway. So for me the task ahead is to prove it. If I can't then the idea of consistently, enough to beat the variance, beating the game with flat bets would also be validated by me as to being ineffective. So that is my challenge.

Ok, so maybe you're not in a position to prove it yet, no problem. But I'm interested in how you could prove it without using some kind of algorithm. Yes it would be a lot of work, but how else could you provide a real proof? You say that the human brain can do it easy, but a computer can keep track of many more variables than a human could, and it would double as a documented proof, if it worked.
#37
Gizmo,

I can see the patterns all right. But now what?

My next bet can be either for the pattern to continue or for it to end. Which do I choose, and more importantly, WHY?

Your proof starts here.  :thumbsup:
#38
Quote from: Albalaha on June 04, 2018, 07:16:23 AM
We just do not need to know which hand wins but rather whenever wins come closer to  the real expected hit rate,we bet in a manner higher than our previous losing bets and win thereby a net profit.

This is just gambler's fallacy I'm afraid.  :no:
#39
Quote from: Jimske on June 03, 2018, 02:14:00 PM
So let's cut to the chase and realize that we either win more hands than lose flat bet and/or have our winning hands accumulate more $ than the accumulation of our losing hands.

Yes, but in order to have your winning hands accumulate more $ than the losing hands you have to know when to bet big, and when to back off. But how would you know this unless you have an edge? and to have an edge you must win more hands than you lose flat bet...  So it's not a case of either/or; the former option is a precondition for the latter.
#40
Quote from: Jimske on June 03, 2018, 02:14:00 PM
Example soxfan Sure Win can profit with a low of 16% strike rate.  Surely if one can profit from such a low strike rate one could devise a method to overcome a 49% strike rate!!!

But it's not really the strike rate which is the problem. Just cover 30 numbers on the roulette layout and you have an 81% strike rate, but this doesn't mean it's a better idea than betting 3 numbers (it isn't). And profit over a 16% strike rate doesn't tell you much; over how many hands must this minimum strike rate materialise? It can't be many.

I do concede that perhaps in the majority of cases, gamblers lose not to the house edge, but to variance. One way of countering this is to just place more bets, but the trade off there is that you're exposing more to the HA. Generally speaking if you're playing an NE game the bold plan is the best one. If you have the balls and bankroll then go for it.
#41
Quote from: Albalaha on June 03, 2018, 08:06:53 AM
          Again you are being hasty. The long run, in which you might get to win, you may give up all hopes of winning back your losses. Check  #3 of American Zumma book. It kept on so bad for 15k spins, even giving 1 chip for 100 placed bets won't help. The terms, "may" and "will" should never be used as synonyms of each other.

You didn't say "Guarantee that I will win in X spins", and of course variance is always present, but with an edge you will prevail over time. The necessary bankroll required for severe drawdowns can be calculated.

Quote
      I just mean to say that the house edge alone could be handled in playable sessions. Variance coupled with foolish money management feed casinos. Crying over house edge alone is like saying, a 105 kg wrestler has borne edge over another wrestler of 100 kg weight and that with 100 kg weight is mathematically bound to lose.

To say that the house edge can "be handled in playable sessions" is just to say it doesn't matter, which is absurd.  Your analogy with the wrestlers is a poor one. Nobody would agree that weight alone is the deciding factor in a wrestling match, but as I've said, the other factors such as MM and discipline only make a difference AFTER you have gained a real edge; they are not a substitute. And I'm not "crying" over the house edge; even in roulette it can be overcome, just not by nonsensical strategies such as quitting when ahead, or patterns in past numbers, trends, and progressions. These have zero merit in a random game of independent trials.
#42
Quote from: Xander on June 02, 2018, 06:18:26 PM
Mike,

Gizmo doesn't comprehend the math.  He really sucks at it.  He's a "literate boy," but not one of the "mathboyz."

I know, but my replies aren't really for Gizmo. And besides, he's admitted he has a "problem" with gambling. I'm proud to be one of the "mathboyz".  :P
#43
Quote from: Albalaha on June 03, 2018, 06:03:16 AM
1. Play roulette without house edge/without zero/fair payout and try to beat that conclusively in long run, you will fail again. We have lots of no zero spins to try.

If the game is fair then in the long run you will break even, but even offering a fair game the casino is still likely to win because they have an infinite bank in comparison with any individual player. Look up "Risk of Ruin" for the math.

Quote2. Give me any session with only the house edge/house fee and any scatter of outcomes in say roulette. Give me a number to beat that comes only with the house edge. Give me a session of 185 spins with a number coming only 5 times, anywhere. I will get in plus at a given point, irrespective of the location of that win.

That wouldn't prove anything, and it's easy with hindsight to say "I would have quit here" AFTER the session. The truth is in some sessions you will never get ahead.

Quote3. OK. If the negative expectations beat a game alone, I turn the tables for you. I will give u an edge. I will give u 1 chip for free for every 100 bets placed, irrespective of your winning or losses. Can you beat the game in the long run with this positive expectation?

Of course, you will win in the long run.

I agree with you that the house edge isn't the ONLY factor; poor discipline and money management certainly contribute much to the casino's coffers which they wouldn't get if gamblers didn't use silly progressions and continually "reinvest" their winnings until they lose everything, but self discipline and sensible money management should be givens; they are necessary but not sufficient for success. The overriding factor is getting an edge in the first place, only then should you focus on MM and discipline, they are certainly not substitutes for an edge. And variance is not the enemy as many gamblers seem to think. If you have no edge it's the only way you can win in the short term, and if you have an edge it's irrelevant.
#44
Quote from: Gizmotron on June 01, 2018, 08:44:09 PM

Why, mathematically, must anyone have an edge in order to win?

Gizmo,

You really don't need math to understand why an edge is needed, simple logic in plain English is enough. First, what is an edge? It's the difference between what you SHOULD get paid in order to break even, and what you ACTUALLY get paid. If the payments on winning bets are short, the edge lies with the house, if they are long, you have the edge. eg. if the payout is 35 chips on a single number and the probability of a hit is 1/37, you will lose, if it's 1/36 you will break even, and if it's 1/35 you will win (long term). The edge is defined by the relationship between the payout and the probability of a win. The simple math which encapsulates this is well known. Here is the forumula for expectation in even money bets on a double zero wheel:

EV = (18/38 x 1) + (20/38 x -1) = 18/38 - 20/38 = -2/38 = -5.26%

So ON AVERAGE, you lose.

Gamblers often think they can win because the house edge very rarely manifests over a session or even a number of sessions. They win because of the variance, which in the SHORT term can often put them way ahead of what the expectation (long term average) dictates. But as the number of bets increases, the house edge dominates. It's the short term behaviour of variance (standard deviation) which fools players into thinking that they can win long term. The expected loss is proportional to the number of bets made, but the standard deviation is proportional to the square root of the number of bets made.

The blue line (standard deviation) initially increases at a faster rate than the expected loss (red line), but there will come a time (when the lines intersect) after which you will be in the red, never to recover.
#45
General Discussion / Re: The "No System" System
May 31, 2018, 07:17:20 AM
Quote from: Blue_Angel on May 30, 2018, 06:33:10 PM
Well that's your opinion which reflects a rigid mentality and it's based on the conventional "wisdom".


But please answer me honestly, since when it's really better to think and act like the majority (average Joe)?
And I'm not talking only about gambling, but about almost everything...
As a general rule in my life I'm trying to avoid the majority beliefs, habits, mentality, way of life in general.

BA,

It may be my "opinion" but at least I can back it up with facts and logic, which is not the case for those who say that guessing which RANDOM number is going to appear next has some validity. All you have is mere assertion. As I said, if you were able to demonstrate that these techniques actually work, you would have to use facts and logic, statistics, etc. ie, rational processes!

And if you are trying to avoid the majority of beliefs etc, aren't you as much controlled by them as someone who follows the herd? What is the value of going against the grain just for the sake of it?

@ Gizmo,

QuoteAll I do is watch 12 different sets of 18 numbers. I'm not stuck to just the reds. I can see up ticks in any one of the sets. I can guess better than you can pontificate. I have the skill. You don't.

This would only work if there was some genuine asymmetry in the outcomes, or if previous outcomes influenced future outcomes, if only sometimes. This can and does happen in trading stocks because people tend to use the same indicators, and swings are often driven by what other people are doing. It doesn't happen in roulette (or Bacc) for obvious reasons, so your candlestick charts are irrelevant. You can jump on a trend or anti trend but there is never any tendency for it to continue, and if you can't identify any REAL underlying causes which correlate with the perceived trends, you're just following a random walk.

QuoteJust saying you are right does not actually make you right.

Correct, but this is just what you do. I give good reasons why your ideas can't work, whereas you just assert that they do. Haven't you noticed that trend?