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 - Xander

#31
Quote from: Jimske on May 24, 2018, 09:22:41 PM
You obviously don't play and it's good that you don't.  Quite correct, cannot avoid variance.  But there is two aspects to it.  One is short term and the other long term.   Here is a bit of short term variance from couple days ago:  LLL W LLLLL W LLLL W LLLL  Ouch!  Only won 4 out of first 49 hands!.  Well that just means the casino owes me some wins.  When you're down that low you generally will come back a good bit to at least 45% but if yo just get back to the expected EV you're gonna recoup.  It took another 100 hands to get back up but it did prove to be profitable at a net of $420.00 with no higher than $50.00 bet.  I had a profit as soon as I hit 49%.   Fortunately the VARIANCE goes both ways!

I chose that session because it has such a low swing.  That's unusual but it does happen oon occasion.

Your comment doesn't even make sense.  And "LLLWLLL?"  This is tracking nonsense.  ::)  There's no value to it.  It's just leading you down the path of gambler's fallacy.  There is no expectation that you will recoup anything.  The random walk just dictates that moving forward your expectation is to just lose at the house edge, not for events to catch back up or to make up for some kind of loss.  I hope you're not implying that it will.
#32
Quote from: Jimske on May 25, 2018, 12:11:18 PM
Of course.  I always expect to return to the law of large numbers.

What is it that you expect the law of large numbers to do for you?
#33
Quote from: Gizmotron on May 25, 2018, 01:53:44 AM

Xander, I get it. You are selling having an edge while dismissing anything else that you can be categorized as not having an edge. Ten reds in a row are not a "zero sum game."  Perhaps we should move on to word games like zero some manipulations. I'm fascinated by your anal retentive perpetuation of this world of having an edge. It's like confirmation bias meets the Grand Inquisitor. You are officially labeled the "edgeNatzi." It's great to belong to a club, don't you think?


There is no chance in ell that you are concerned that I will be disappointed without your caring warnings. So, why are you here? We are all dummy dicks on a puss farm full of cats. Are you the gambling savior? I just don't get it?

I have nothing to sell anyone. 

Ten reds in a row is meaningless.  It's no more relevant than a bear pattern in the clouds.  I don't know why you're enamored with it.
#34
Gizmo,

Winning is not a mindset.  The game doesn't care about your discipline.  It doesn't care about how many games you're trying to win or what your money management is.  What matters is whether or not you have the edge.  If you don't have the edge, then your expectation moving forward is simply the sum of all of your bets multiplied times the house edge.   Along the way to the long run you'll of course contend with variance (luck) bobbing up and down, but it's a zero sum game that's merely a short term distraction.   

If you really want to win, find a way to get the edge.  Everything else, like the money management part/gaming discipline is just noise.  Everything that needs to be said about the MM can be stated in just one paragraph.

#35
I don't know of the site.  I wouldn't pay a dime to visit it either.

Like it or not, though, the math doesn't lie.  I find that the people that disagree do so because they don't comprehend the effects of variance.   Variance isn't something that you can avoid with gaming discipline.  It just is what it is, "luck."  Variance is accurately described mathematically, and when you have the edge, it's nothing more than an annoyance at best. 
#36
QuoteYou can and will stay ahead of the game by far, if only you can truly control, recognize and be fully 100% consciousness of your emotions, desires, visions and thoughts.

I'm sorry, but this simply is not true.  The house edge doesn't care about your emotions, desires or thoughts.  Like it or not, in the long term you can not win or lose at a rate that exceeds the house edge.

In order to remain a consistent winner over a long period of time, you must have an edge over the game, and unfortunately discipline doesn't provide it.
#37
Baccarat Forum / Re: FYI: Not here to argue
May 20, 2018, 07:05:14 PM
Quote from: Wewin2222 on May 20, 2018, 06:10:47 PM
I've never made any reference to roulette.

Wewin2222

Aren't you also the poster by the name of Heatmap from the other forums?
#38
Baccarat Forum / Re: FYI: Not here to argue
May 20, 2018, 05:31:49 PM
Quote from: Wewin2222 on May 20, 2018, 10:19:20 AM
This is inside information so take it for what it's worth.

I haven't been here for a while because I don't like arguing with people,  however I think the general public or gambler if you will needs to know this information.

1)  It's common knowledge at this point that casinos use the shuffle master to cheat people out of their money.
2)  They used to use the shuffle master to beat the advantage player who liked to use a system.
3)  They don't care if you use a system now because they have combined the shuffle master with an electronic shoe that pushes the cards out.
4)  All the casino cares about now is  taking the most money for every hand that is delt. They accomplish this by using the shuffle master to position the cards and using the electronic shoe push the cards out to the side that is favorable for the casino to make the most amount of money on that particular hand.
5) Example: First 2 cards in the electronic shoe is a 8 and 9, the next 2 cards are face cards. If the most money is bet on the Player side they will receive the 9 allowing that side to win.  In other words the electronic shoe is capable of dealing the card underneath to allow the casino to have an unbeatable advantage.

What the electronic shoe and the shuffle master combined the casino is able to decide the outcome of every single hand. This Technology cannot be beat and it  takes cheating to a whole new level.

Wewin2222

Heatmap,

You're working just based on your feelings about the situation rather than solid proof.  It reminds me of your argument that live roulette wheels were rigged because you didn't understand that the rectangular shaped marks were in each pocket. (By the way, they were scuff marks from the ball.)
#39
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


#40
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.
#41
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.
#42
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.  ;)
#43
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.
#44
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.
#45
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.