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

#46
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.   :thumbsup:  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. 
#47
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?


#48
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.



#49
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."  ::)
#50
Alrelax,

Maybe you already know this..maybe you don't.  Don Johnson won because he used math to effectively exploit the rebate process.  He didn't have a system to beat bac.  He did however count cards at bj for a bit.

Like it or not, the math matters.

QuoteAs well in closing it would be beautiful if you would just state what your definitive mathematical and statistical Edge has proven and provided you in the amount of wins, cash and profits, as well as the definition as to what that edge is, so you can make your contribution to the board and allow other players to profit the same way that you are claiming or say that you have or did in the past. But I have yet to read that and you have yet to post that unless I'm missing it and if I'm missing it, please post it for everyone else to profit off of which you defend that you so, and claim.  Thanks
.

In roulette my edge is 10 to 50% edge.  Method is vb and biased wheels.

In bac my edge is much lower.  1.5 to occasionally 23%.
My favorite was the lucky nine side count.  Bac however is far less lucrative than roulette.

Posting pics of  winnings, and money, I feel, is tacky and ghetto, like wearing thick gold chains and wearing a grill.
#51
Quote from: alrelax on May 02, 2018, 04:22:17 PM
Update list, not complete, others are within my writings, but I am updating some:

Additions and Reductions, on 3 card draws. As soon as one side begins to get additions, particularly the player side and the banker side is reduced by its 3rd card—be alert for that event to continue.  Once it happens a 2nd time in a row—particularly within the first half of the shoe or the middle section, it might favor the continuance of doing that numerous times.  Likewise a reduction to the Players side and the banker winning with the first 2 cards or the third card that increases.  However, IMO and experience the first one is usually stronger overall and continues longer.

6/7's & 8's/9's. Without anything else, I have found that 1 point wins and 1 point losses for both hands, tends to lend itself to the worst rationalization of what the next hand will bring, more often than not.  As well as any other numbers that prevail and lose this is the worst that brings total randomness, continuance and any other chain of events that almost no one can profit off of.

Naturals-alternating. An event exists to be exploited when alternating naturals appear frequently.  Naturals have a huge tendency to 'WOW' the players and they convince themselves that the side just got 'strong' and aggressively wager the same side that the natural just prevailed on.  However, naturals are frequent and have a tendency to bounced or alternate back and forth for a short event more often than not, especially when the '-' or '+' is close together.

Naturals.
  When one side is producing naturals over the other side's 6-7 or 8's and winning—it is an event that can be exploited frequently.  Meaning, for example, P has 6 and B has 7, then P has a N8 and B had a N9, etc., or the opposite.

Fortune 7's (3 card Banker winning 7's, 40:1).  Zero to low ties.  Within the first 10 hands.  And hands 16-23.  Those are the most frequent events when the shoe produces the F-7 hand.  Frequently shoes have 1 or 2 F-7's.  Some shoes have none.  If a 3rd F-7 does appear, generally there is a 4th.  5 and 6 F-7's are a bit infrequent or rare but do occur.  Or, should I say you will not generally see that in every other shoe or every third shoe, etc.  By the way, the reason there are more F-7's in the beginning of the shoe than elsewhere and on a more frequent basis is the number of cards in the shoe of course.  Frequently there are many 10's that form the first 3 or 4 cards dealt and then a larger card reducing the players side 'under 6' or remaining at 6 and drawing an Ace through a 7 to make the 3 card 7 on the Banker side, etc.  F-7's and the next hand 'cut'.  The highest amount of the F-7 appearing hands will 'cut' to the Players side with the upcoming hand to be dealt.

Panda 8's (3 card Player winning 8's, 25:1).
Panda 8's will appear a norm of 3 to 6 times.  Panda 8's appear frequently in the beginning of the shoe in multiple more than F-7's generally will by far.  Panda 8's will also appear in clusters (repeating themselves in a shorter hand-span) with greater frequency than F-7's generally do.  Panda 8's appear with less consistency within certain clusters of hands than F-7's but with a greater appearance of anywhere in the shoe from the beginning to the end.  Panda 8's also with great frequency tend to 'cut' to the Banker with the following hand to be dealt after the appearance of a Panda 8. 

-10/+10/+20. Frequently the total count will hover around '-' or '+' 10 somewhere between hand 15 and midway or so.  And then favor the deficit side in smaller hit rates for its attempt to "catch-up".  It happens and happens repeatedly.  Much rarer an event, one side will continue to +20 and continue to rise.  Infrequent by far.  I have only witnessed a handful of shoes be able to provide the + side that was already well over +15, say +17 to +20 or so and then produce a streak on top of that.  Depending on how far into the shoe it is, the deficit side usually (USUALLY) makes a pretty good attempt to "catch-up" to the other side. The key thing in this event as I have found, is the deficient side will usually 'catch-up' in a slow grind by not allowing the + side to streak or repeat as it was doing or presenting, previously.  Depending on the hand of the shoe, I have done extremely well and won larger wagers based on these events siding with the '-' or the '+' of a side to win or lose.   

Equaling Out.
  The highest numbers of shoes will equal out in how many winning hands each side ended up with and if not equal, within 3 to 5 of each other as next most favorable.  An event to be exploited along the shoe after the first 1/3rd of the shoe, many times.  If not, after the midway or 60% point.  Another easy exploit that comes along frequently is when it is within 1 or 2 of each other.  Example, 27-28, then 28-28, then 28-29, then 29-29, then 30-29, etc.  That event to me has won many a large wager, the same as a streak of any one side continuing—when it is there, it is there without reason, comparison or definitively being able to define the reason why.   

½ Way to End of Shoe.  More often than not, when the first half of the shoe was 'strong', frequently repeating B's and P's and other distinctive continuing trends that formed, the second half is one to be extremely careful of it continuing.  Sure, great if it does.  But when you play long enough, this is one of the easiest and most profitable events that can be exploited big time for it to be almost the opposite of the first half.

Alternating & 2's.
  No rhyme or reason, nothing I have ever found that will point to the successful and continued outcome of chops and/or 2's.  If they appear within a section they can be exploited as it is an event that frequently happens.

Players Side Repeating Within Beginning/First Section.
  Players repeating hands in any form of clusters have a frequent tendency to appear within the beginning of the shoe, in the first section.  Meaning, 3 + Players with a frequent 1, sometimes 2 Bankers and each time the winning hand is Players it repeats with 3 + occurrences.  This kind of section is frequently followed by a section of 1's and 2's in various configurations when the first section losses its Player dominance stance, frequently around the 15-19th hands.

Sections & Turning Points. The card or board needs to be visualized into 'sections and turning points'.  There are usually 4 of them easily identifiable within a shoe.  There might be 3 in the extremely weak or very strong shoes and a possibly of 5.  Following 'waves' and the 'sections' makes it easier to follow the flow of cards and the presentments many of the times.  Following the 'waves' and attempting to wager heavier within the middle of them, is my key to increasing my wins with heavier wagers rather than all too often wagering at the very end of any weak, strong or continuing neutral presentments happening.  The key to using it while it is happening, is to identify a new section and with a multitude of other quickly rationalized out thoughts, find yourself within the start or the middle of a presenting 'wave'. 

Sections Identified. The sections with their turning points will reflect the 'waves' of the shoe.  The sections are basically, one of three things.  1)  Weak; 2) Strong; and 3) Neutral.  Baccarat shoes will produce those three series of events in a random order.  However, the shoe will generally have many consistencies which will represent 'weak' or 'strong', patterns/trends/clusters, etc.  For sake of a 'non-arguing/non-challenging' definition, the 'weak-strong-neutral' clusters which I put into 'sections' appear in random presentations without being repetitive according to any one thing.  However, numerous factors when present, have proved them to myself with frequency that is noticeable and identifiable as I have described within the above paragraphs.  How long will the 'clusters' last?  Unknown.  From a few to numerous. 

Weak.
  'Weak' is a representation of the most prevalent events that happen within a shoe of baccarat, usually.  'Weak' can be the traditional 1's or 2's or say 1's followed by a 3 repeating side.  'Weak' can be a situation where say the Player had 3's and 4's to the Bankers 1, each time the Banker beat the Player.  Thus, "The Banker is weak".  Or, say the shoe produced 4 Banker runs of 6 to 9 and 3 Player runs of 5 to 7 with a 3 repeating Banker.  Then there was a turn to presenting 1's and 2's.  Thus, "The shoe got real weak".  Or, the Player's 3rd card consistently reduces them to zero or near zero total point value and the Bankers are winning with the first 2 cards or adding up to 7-8-9 total value with every 3rd card pulled.  Thus, "The Player is weak". 

Strong.  'Strong' is a representation of the third most prevalent events that happen within a shoe of baccarat, usually.  'Strong' can be the traditional streaks and runs of either Banker or Player in consecutive order, one after the next.  'Strong' can be a situation where either side, Banker or Player, consecutively produces series or sections of winning hands in multiple.  'Strong' can very well be a section of alternating hands, a continuous 'chop-chop' of alternating Bankers and Players for many times.  'Strong' can very well be a section of 'doubles' or 'pairs' that are produced side-by-side in a continuous result for 6 or 8 or 10 times, etc.  'Strong' can be a series of 1's-2's-3-3-2's-1's, or many other things along those lines.  'Strong' can very well be where a deficient side lost +10 or even +15 or more times and then began to catch-up and equal out the deficiency it was holding.  'Strong' can be where either side is adding point value with every 3rd card drawn for many successive hands in repeating shoe presentment. 

Neutral.
  'Neutral' is a representation of the second most prevalent events that happen within a shoe of baccarat, usually.  Neutral happen repeatedly throughout the shoe in many ways.  The most obvious is the +10, -10 or +20 situations with the 'total running' count.  The shoe will frequently, very frequently 'equal' out, meaning the deficient side will catch up and then balance out.  See, 'Equaling Out' in the above paragraphs.

Consistent.
  'Consistent' is when the shoe is producing presentments that are holding a repetitive pattern, that replicates a several to numerous previous hands, whether those hands lost or won.  Consistency is one of the easiest things to spot in an upcoming wave about to happen or one that is happening.

Inconsistent.  'Inconsistent' is an event that occurs, not quite rare, but with a lot less frequency than weak/weakness.

Dominant.  'Dominant is the same as strong and consistent events that occur.

Singular.
'Singular' is an individual event or 1's, that occur.

Multiple.  'Multiple' is repeating, dominant and strong events that occur.

Frequent.  'Frequent' is the same as strong events that occur.

Rare. 'Rare; is the same as inconsistent events that occur. 

What so many players, regardless of their experience fail to recognize are the identifiable events I touched on here.  Oh yeas, they do after they are presented and history of course.  That method gives them their fuel and energy to continually label the game as guessing and luck because when they attempt to use that presented information as the sole basis for wagering, the wagers are not within the 'wave'. 

As well, so many people believe baccarat goes only two ways with its presentation, which are attempted to be identified.  'Strong', which they label only as streaks and runs and we all know how that goes.  And secondly, with the 'weak' meaning they interpret 'weak' as being related to chop-chop or possibly the presentments proving 'non streaks', etc. 

Baccarat can be frequently identifiable with the correct vision of a player that has the correct frame-of-mind coupled with other emotional, judgement and physiological issues being present or absent.

By chance do you have any math to backup your ideas?  It looks interesting, but I don't quite see how the math could possibly prove that it will provide an edge.  Mike Shackleford's calculations based on counting bac in general seem to contradict much of what you've written above.  I'm afraid that the edge just isn't there.

Best of luck,

Xander
#52
Alrelax,

I'm glad what you're doing is working for you.

The AP world is much different.  In this world, what matters is playing a mathematically perfect game based on the strategy.  This is true for sort players, and side bet counters. In this world the least experienced will perform just as well as the most seasoned player... if they both strictly follow the strategy. There is no room for hunches or feelings.   The money management is mindless, because it's nothing more than a very simple calculation.  The variance is viewed as nothing more than a random streak that is a double edged sword.  It's both good and bad.  Variance/luck is not predictable, exploitable or avoidable.  It just IS.  Gaining and maintaining the edge is everything.

Quotetaking advantage of opportunities without any thought of mathematical outcomes that may or may not present themselves, this is playing the right way, risking little and winning many times greater:

I hate to say it, but that sounds a bit like just guessing.   In the AP world, the optimum strategy based on the math is what matters most.  But again, I'm glad you've found something that works for you.

Best of luck,

-Xander

#53
Baccarat Forum / Re: Ez baccarat dragon bet
April 29, 2018, 05:44:25 PM
My main game is roulette.  And yes I have been tresspassed several times. 

I have not been banned for playing bac, but associates have.  Several AP sort/edge players have been.
It is far less common though to be banned as an AP bac player.

You forget, I'm a professional player.  I mean no disrespect, but as a fulltime ap I have more experiences inside the casino than most recreational players such as yourself.  I also keep up to date on the latest casino risk management news, etc and network with other aps and some consultants.

Regarding this Dragon bet...the edge is toO low.  I wouldn't cross the street to play it.  However lucky nines was very lucrative.  APs don't chase trends, they chase opportunities.
#54
Baccarat Forum / Re: Ez baccarat dragon bet
April 29, 2018, 09:16:18 AM
Alrelax,

I'm glad what you're doing is working well for you.  :thumbsup:

As a professional gambler I've found that with some gambler's... experience can be detrimental.  As an AP it's more important to rely on solid data, facts, and math...rather than experiences.   Relying on experience rather than data/math can lead to poor decision making.  The reason is that our memory of events can become biased based on our mood at the time of the experiences.  I've found it easier to train a successful AP that's new to the game, because they're a blank slate, void of superstitions and fallacies.

Money management and gaming discipline are the easiest part of being an AP.  Everything that really needs to be said about them can be said in just a paragraph or two at most.  Unfortunately way way way too much time is wasted discussing them, rather than discussing how to actually get the best edge.  When playing, it's more important to rely on the data, math, the fundamentals, and the optimum play strategy.   Money management is nothing more than a percentage of the bankroll based on the probability of ruin and (edge/expectancy x confidence level).    As far as win goals, etc...that's for gamblers, not APs.  Our goal is to win as much as possible.  The bigger question is whether to milk a situation or burn it down and risk being trespassed.

-Xander
#55
Baccarat Forum / Re: Ez baccarat dragon bet
April 28, 2018, 08:51:49 AM
Wizard of Odds, aka Mike Shackleford is a an actuary.  Just curious...do you have any idea how hard the actuary  exam is to pass?
In short, Mike is a mathematician minus the "Dr.".  When Mike, or Dr. Jacobson tell you the odds, you should believe them!  Both can teach you a great deal about how to exploit the games.  :thumbsup:

By the way, did you know that both are/were consultants to casinos?  Mike also taught gaming mathematics at the university.  Dr. Jacobson's credentials speak for themselves as well.

Best of luck!

-Xander
#56
Baccarat Forum / Re: Ez baccarat dragon bet
April 27, 2018, 07:45:28 PM
Quote
And again, that information comes from someone that claims 'big table' bac only exists in Europe and in the James Bond movies.  He has admitted to rarely, if ever playing baccarat.  Stats are one thing and playing t game is a total other story.  Like driving a car in an arcade video machine and driving on an interstate.  Totally different in every way, shape and form. 

Ermmm fyi.  Dr. Jacobson is a PhD mathematician and casino consultant, that ran over 100 billion hands to sim the results.  Lol!


#57
Baccarat Forum / Re: Ez baccarat dragon bet
April 27, 2018, 07:28:14 AM
Quote from: RouletteGhost on April 27, 2018, 02:44:03 AM
Rumor has it, the dragon bet can be exploited.

Yes?

Ghost,

Read Dr. Jacobson's page. 

"By comparison, playing the Dragon side bet in EZ Baccarat, the AP expects to earn about $60 per shoe. It follows that LN returns 857% more than the Dragon side bet. The closest baccarat side bet to LN in vulnerability is the Easy Six side bet that returns about $89 per shoe.  In this case, LN returns 545% more than Easy Six. These comparisons make it clear that LN is extraordinarily vulnerable to card counting."
#58
Any Southern California Players Here?
#59
Anyone on this board playing in Miami FL?
#60
Gizmo,

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