Quote from: Mike on May 20, 2018, 06:10:56 AM
My vote goes to 2, followed by 1, and lastly (least effective) would be 3.

Mike,

I'm not surprised that you knew the answer.

Player one very likely went broke.  A bankroll of only 1k would have been insufficient.  If his bankroll was in the neighborhood of 15 to 20k and  If he did survive the fluctuations of variance then the player would have won about 30k

Player three very likely would have gone bust as well.  The garish progression would have required a bankroll in the neighborhood of 60 to 70k.   A 1k bankroll would have been utterly insufficient.  Had the player been successful he could have won around 137k.

Player two is the real winner. Using a realistic bankroll of only 1k the player would have won around 403k

Esoito,

A word of advice...  Less is better in forums.  Too much moderation turns people away.  Your forum unfortunately is running very low on posters.  Right now you pretty much just have one big blog written by Alrelax, and then a handful of other posters at best.   Moderation closer to the wizardofvegas format would be a better fit, and would turn away fewer of the intelligent posters.

Quote from: soxfan on May 20, 2018, 12:01:19 AM
\

So, are you gonna define "long run", hey hey?

Think of the long run as being the point where you're luck won't be enough to win and you're results match the long term expectation.

What you really want to know is at what point you're destined to become a permanent loser.  That point in time comes much sooner than the long run.   Generally that point is where a five standard deviation win is no longer enough to overcome the house edge when flat betting.  Like it or not, if you can't improve the accuracy of your predictions, then that little house edge will eventually wipe you out, regardless of your progression.

Quote from: esoito on May 20, 2018, 12:13:53 AM
A gentle warning:   one or two responses are close to personal attacks.

Confine comments to strategies, statements and beliefs only, and I will have no need to take action.

In other words, play the ball and not the player. 

Make personal comments about a poster and you choose the consequencies.

Heed this warning...

Perhaps you can point out the personal attacks???

If you feel that there are some in this thread than I can certainly point out some real attacks in other threads. 

Quote from: soxfan on May 20, 2018, 12:04:36 AM
Ok, so how many hand or shoe of baccarats would that entail, hey hey?

Depends on whether or not you're playing commission free bac, betting player or banker, etc... So right around 200k hands and you're toast.

Quote from: soxfan on May 19, 2018, 09:42:37 PM
You seem to be one of the mathite so perhaps you can tell me how many shoe or hand of baccarats constitute the "long run" that combined with no real edge will lead to my inevitable doom, hey hey?

By implying that I'm a "mathite" you're basically saying that you're not one, and that you likely suck at math.   It's like an illiterate person calling someone that can read a "literite."
Regardless, you don't want to stand in a box labeled stupid just to try and be cool.   Besides, I know you're not one of those fools.

Any gambler that refers to gambling experts as "mathites" or "mathboyz" certainly isn't someone from which you ever want to take gambling advice.

Rather than the long run, what you really want to know is how long do you need to play before you become a permanent loser.  This is relatively easy to determine.  Well over 99.99% of the time it's the point where even a five standard deviation win is no longer enough to overcome the house edge.

Quote from: Gizmotron on May 19, 2018, 08:22:11 PM
I've got a better idea. Let's pretend that you don't have an advantage. Now, for the sake of argument, can any player, playing even chance bets, win more than they lose at some point early in any session?


If you agree that is's possible to be ahead a few wins, then can that same person let the house's money, and only the house's money, ride for two more winning attempts, just to see if the player can win a little more, without any risk to that player's original bankroll on these attempts?


I don't think the triggerNazi union will like this much, but some of us in the gambling world just might really like it. I do. Course you always run the risk that there are people here and there that will label you defective in some cliched style. Byut the best thing to do about them is to ignore them.

Gizmo,

It's this simple.  If you don't have an edge, then you CAN'T win in the long run.

Quote from: soxfan on May 19, 2018, 07:47:54 PM
I've been winning well and regular for the past few years playin baccrats fulltime using a negative progression with the trigger. So, I guess I'm just on the rights ide of variance and haven't buck up against the "long run" yet right, hey hey

Soxfan,

That's great.  I'm glad it's working for you.     However if you feel that you have an edge, then you'd win vastly more if you were to utilize an up as you win progression.  Again, that's only if you feel that the triggers have real value and are providing an edge. 

A fun test question.  Let's pretend that one of the systems/methods/strategies on the board has an edge

The player has a 6% edge, and plans on playing off and on over a period of several days for a total of 10k spins.   (I don't care about or want to know how the edge is obtained, and who's method it is.  This is not a debate about whether a system works or not.)

  The player's starting bankroll is $1,000.  Which player will likely win the most money, and receive the most attention in the form of sex and love from his/her spouse or friend.  Player 1,2, or 3?


1. The player flat bets $50 every spin on the top numbers.

2. The player bets 1% of his bankroll distributed over his best numbers?  (His initial bet is only $10 in total.)

3. A player that runs an aggressive up as you lose betting progression 5,10,20,40,80,100,200?

Number one, two, or three?

QuoteGizmo -Oh, really. Perhaps you will listen this time? My "triggers" are when I see a swarm of the same characteristic occurring across many groupings, made up of multiple sets, and even though they discontinue in one set or group, that same characteristic forms in another, then I have a coincidence that has taken form. It's not a mathematical form, at least one that could not be explained by a chaos theoretician. It's there because I objectively positioned myself to notice it. It's not Chaos mambo jumbo either. Perhaps you have overlooked the global effect or the effectiveness states? Those are discloses that are not  "this subjective approach." Who is "deluding themselves?"

Gizmo,

I'm sorry, but you've buried yourself in more gambler's fallacy nonsense. 

Triggers are worthless and are often accompanied by up as you lose progressions.  If the player were flat betting then the futility of triggers in the random game becomes obvious.

QuoteYou've just refuted your own statement. If reality is inherently unknowable then how do you know THAT? There's a big difference between not knowing and saying that reality is INHERENTLY unknowable, which is a philosophical statement, and an incoherent one at that.

The fact is, like many other system players, you're confounded by randomness and so feel the need to make subjective decisions in the belief (and hope) that they will serve you better than "objective" decisions based on math and statistics. But there's no way to square this circle because you cannot make subjective decisions and expect them to give you better results than objective ones. Why? because in order to get an edge there must be some objective reality which gives you that edge. If "what works for me may not work for you" then OBVIOUSLY your wins are due to luck, not an edge.

But those who recommend this subjective approach always have to be vague about just what their "triggers" are. There was a guy who used to post here called XXVV who advocated using intuition as a way of picking his bets. He said intuition was using reason to the Nth degree, whatever that means. But when pressed to be specific about their actual bets and the triggers they use, the "subjective betting" advocates either avoid telling you, or if they do it's shown that they confer no edge whatsoever. I'm not saying that they are deliberately trying to deceive, and sometimes I'm sure they're sincere, it's just that because they haven't done proper testing (because they lack the required knowledge) they're deluding themselves.

And it's partly arrogance. Why do so many gamblers believe that the math doesn't apply to them? Why do they think they're so much smarter than anyone else and that the experts can be ignored? Maybe it's fear of something they don't understand, so they lash out at anything which looks like "theory".-Mike

Above is a well written post, by Mike (brilliant poster), that pretty much sums up reality.  All the experience in the world of baccarat doesn't make a player a better guesser, or improve their edge if they're not already playing a mathematically perfect game designed to exploit certain inefficiencies within the game.  The math doesn't lie, but players sometimes exaggerate, have very active imaginations, and at times just make sh^t up. 

There are no symmetries/asymmetries patterns or flows that can be exploited if the math says that they don't exist.  Anything that says otherwise is just word salad.  Math and probability are not opinions, and they don't care about your experience or your feelings.  In the long run...the game is never beaten, but the dealing procedures and side bets can be utilized to exploit inefficiencies...producing an edge for the skilled AP.  (Sort play, edge player, side counts, hole carding, etc...)

For those people that believe that the secret to winning is in patterns, symmetry, and flow, one word comes to mind."HUBRIS." 

Any Southern California Players Here?

Anyone on this board playing in Miami FL?

Gizmo,

I have no idea what it is that you're trying to say.  And..I suspect that you don't either.

QuoteFar better not to actually post the details because then nobody can show that it doesn't work. Just stick to no. (5) and make grand claims. Someone's bound to pm you and make an offer.

That's the way the gypsy scam works.