Atlantic City. I remember it well. A good basic story. Enjoy!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0EQk5Inz2c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0EQk5Inz2c
Our members are dedicated to PASSION and PURPOSE without drama!
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 MenuQuote from: alrelax on June 24, 2019, 12:04:52 AM
June 22nd shoe.
Remember, I have wrote many time, F-7 in the first 10 hands, this one came on hand 9. Or, second most is hand 16 to 23.
Back to the Players Side. This section of Players came hand 22 through hand 46. 17 Players to 4 Bankers. Here is the first half:
[attachimg=1]
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on June 20, 2019, 11:18:51 PM
It was just a kind of joke, we know mathematicians can't beat the game and neither players using an empirical approach. Probably the answer is in the middle.
I won't give specific answers to my questions as nobody is interested on numbers. Just personal comments.
Question #1: it's very very rare to get three consecutive shoes without at least one natural 8/9 showing, especially if 8s and 9s are quite live in the actual portion of the deck. Since such side bet is payed 50:1 we have plenty of room to set up a progressive profitable betting. (For example in three shoes last night 9/21/19 at a B&M Casino, one complete shoe, one half of a shoe and the third one about 3/4 of the shoe. Asym, is exactly correct. One shoe had 3 natural 8/9s presented. One shoe had 2 and in a very short section of presented hands and the other none. With the amount of hands as I mentioned.) (I would say to wait for a bit for the 50:1 and if not appearing by hand 30-40 it is a pretty good side bet, IMO.)
#2: when we are on Banker showing 4 and the third card is a 9, of course we are in a very good shape unless player's initial cards shows zero. A missed bonus as the probability player has zero is 1:3.77 (5 is ignored as it forms a tie hand).
An excellent wasted probability that we won't find around the corner. If we were on Player we have no reasons to jump. (I would have to add 4 and 5 as well to that statement)
#3: the average number of player's 3+ streaks is, imo, one of the best tool to take advantage from. Remember that sh.it or fantastic situations tend to come out in clusters. (In lots of ways yes, but as an average, not as a definitive trigger)
#4: oh well, everybody reading my pages should teach me about this. Say we'll get at least 3 asym hands per shoe and it's very very unlikely to get more than 14. Do not fall in the trap to bet banker when the asym force went away. (I would say, if an average had to be named, IMO, 5-7 good ones)
#5: when 7s are particularly live at a EZ baccarat table, the best move is to bet player and the F-7 bet. You don't want to pay the banker's vig when a symmetrical hand is more likely to show up and to get a F-7 with live 7s, banker must get zero as initial point that is a non advantaged asym situation. (In a way, however, it appears to me a greater amount of F-7s are won with 3s, 4s and 6s rather than with 7s. But i do not have worldwide stats on that and I do not believe no one would posses those stats. Too many variables. It does not only take an abundance of 7s in that case, it also takes an abundance of 10s as well as any otehr combination of 2 cards equaling 10 or zero for the third card of 7 to make it a F7 win)
#6: Mathematically is relatively low but any Player standing point is favorite to win itlr. And do not forget the clustering effect: Glen wrote an interesting thread about this. (I forget which one I wrote, but Player seems to win more with standing on 6 than 7s. Of course, if I could or would know the player would have a 7, I would wager on it every single time, just does not work out that way.)
#7: player gets a 42.07% probability to win just about 8.4% of the total hands dealt. Not that easy to get consecutive dog situations like that.
#8: it's quite easy to lose (or win depending on which side we were betting) even 12 or more hands in a row in such B favorite situation. Sometimes it seems that P helping 3s are concentrated on the possible player's third card. Again a kind of clustering effect.
Notice that when the P third card is a 3 only a B 5 or B 6 point are standing (asym situations).
#9: it's a pretty good spot to bet P side and getting a 7 as we'll lose immediately just 19% of the situations (B naturals). Moreover Banker must stand on its 6s when facing a P standing; actually it should draw to get a better probability not to lose (a sort of mistake made by bac inventors, probably set up in order to limit the B advantage). In the remaining possibilities Banker can beat us only catching two cards out of all 13 probabilities. (Do not think about the only two cards to lose scenario. Think about how many darn times you can only lose or tie by drawing one or two cards and that scenario happens, you draw the only one card to lose and everything else would have won or tied. It happens and happens often.) (in fact similar, last night out of 3 shoes, the amount of P or B hands reduced to zero or only one point, the other side (almost all of them where every one was betting) wither tied with a zero zero point value or lost by drawing a 10 or another card to reduce to one zero when the other side remain with a one point total. Example: Player side had 10 and an Ace and Bankers side had 2 tens or face cards. Players pull a third card of 10/0 value and Bankers pulls the same. Players side no one is on wins 1 over 0. Or Players side has a 4 total with first 2 cards and Bankers side has a 6 total and Players side pulls a 7 and Bankers side pulls a 4.)
#10: the probability to get a natural on either side is 34.2%, yet per every shoe dealt card distribution issues tend to deny a perfect balancement of such occurences.
A careful assessment of the consecutiveness of naturals falling on one side or the other one may help to spot the actual "card distribution" advantaged side. Especially when cards are not properly shuffled (that is almost always). (Seems that way at times, but that is one of the things/scenarios a player must be conscious of just as much and stay of conscious of that because it could not pan out or might very well continue with stronger and stronger occurrences rather than balancing out)
It would be a honor for me to work with you Lungyeh as well as with many other members here.
as.
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on September 20, 2019, 08:52:40 PM
I know at least a dozen of players making a living at this game and the common trait is they make very few bets. Some of them know a 0.1% of what me and you know about the game, yet they are long term winners. (Anything is possible, simpler is easier. However, as you and most other know, I have written extensively about the casinos, the psych, the downfalls, the players mind frames and control, etc., etc. Lots of things come into play and yet, very few of us realize what actually influence us in making decisions at the table. One of the easiest and most successful betting selections in Bac is 3 and out. Waiting for that 3rd repeat B or P and wagering for the cut. If a person has a decent bank roll, he can snatch up so many 3 or even 4 and outs, than probably anything else, IMO at the Bac table. But of course the person must be prepared to do a negative Marty for one or two or three or four additional bets. Coming up across a 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 or 11 repeating B or P streak is usually not the case in every shoe. Agreed? However it does happen and if a person proceeds to do a negative Marty against same, it is easily a wipe out and hard and long to make up the loss. Each of us play different and each of us have different experiences and thoughts on the game.)
Mathematically this move is sound. Since the game remains EV-, the probability to be ahead of something will be higher when betting very few hands, say that the best move is to wager everything only one time. (Yes fewer is better for the base win and a win of chips for a person to feel good about and play off of, but all that depends once again, on frame of mind, control, expectations and overall psych of the player. Again, so much comes into play and contributes to the persons thought process, not just the bet selection. We are all or at least most of us, influenced by numerous things at the table. Easy to talk about here, harder at the table to apply it all and walk with small or initial winnings.)
If in this precise instant every bac player in the world will wager Banker, casinos will lose money as B>P even though Banker is payed less than 1:1. ( What do you mean paid less? Are you referring to 5% commission? If you are, not very hard to find an EZ Bac, or other commission free game any longer in most all casinos in the USA. Some do not have that but across the street or down the street does.)
After this hypothetical hand, casinos will win money no matter what. (Depends on how long and how intense and what the persons goals are in playing. The player (if this is what you are referring to) that plays relentlessly for the pot of gold each and every time, will lose far greater than what he will win if he plays long hours, every day, day in and day out, IMO. There might be a very trivial few that can survive long hours at a casino each and every day, and win or at least break even on a long tern and a consistent everyday basis. Again, IMO.)
Obviously if casinos will lose money, players will get something of it. (Please see the attached link. Of course some will come on here and other boards, coping and pasting detailed defenses to what I am about to post, but no one knows the financial position of the players. Some might have lost far greater than those wins and yet others, might be ahead of the game. It depends on a persons wagering amounts and time played in comparison to your wins and losses. Unfortunately for most all players, I DID NOT SAY ALL, I said most all, will wager larger and harder once they begin to lose a session and that is their downfall. As well, the have almost zero management skills as to current and instant win money they happened to capitalize on).
LINK>>> https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-28/wynn-resorts-macau-casino-books-staggering-black-swan-gambling-loss
And altogether obvious is the fact that the more we stay and play the better we are liked by casinos. (Yes, and that is the huge suck in and hold for most players, especially their first several years of playing.)
Ask the casinos if they would like to fade ten $20.000 wagers made on ten different occasions or if they'd like more ten $20k hands made on the same session. (It does not matter to the casino. They account for it by the table min. Most places, I SAID MOST, so people do not challenge, the average table min for a $20k wager is going to be $300 to $500. Some casino properties might be different, but the average goes, $25/$50 to $5,000, $100 to $10k, $200 to $15k, $300/$500 to $20k/$25k off the street no front money table limits. There are some properties that might vary, but that is the average).
Mathematically it doesn't change their expectation. In practical terms this simple different approach means a lot.
as.