Five f7  first shoe!!

2 fortune 7s in our first  4 hands!!  I had 75.00 on each one.  H money said no way and only put 10.00 up.   Will post pics later!!

On the way with my buddy to go pick up H money his kid wrecked his brand new Honda car last night hit a deer or something we're going to go pick him up and hopefully post some good news here in a few hours.

Asym,

Something I wrote elsewhere on the board:

" allowing other players to Influence you. however works both ways and I've had some of my largest wins with camaraderie and unofficial Partnerships where we followed each other at the table and we made consistent wins and avoided losses But be forewarned that easily backfires and causes ill will and a fast decent to losing a buy in as well."

As well:

"............................chance as to the results happening and what the shoes have produced while I was playing the game of baccarat, because the analysis will not allow me to win the type of money at baccarat I have discovered that can be obtained with identifying and wagering during the 'waves' and 'opportunities' produced by shoes of the game."............................

This is what we plan for H-Money tonight, my buddy the retired NYPD guy, myself and H-Money going to the casino tonight.  Told H-Money he has to listen to us, or we will embarrass him like he never envisioned he agreed.  LOL  Here is a primer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j3_iPskjxk

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on May 04, 2018, 01:11:51 AM


......................................

Alrelax is right. What didn't happen so far is less likely to show up as a finite shoe is always a card dependent proposition and vice versa.

Actually and after millions of shoe tested,  the number of situations when consecutive B doubles are followed by single or 2-in a row B doubles are out numbered by the same opposite events.

What didn't happen could happen but what did happen could more easily happen again. Providing a careful classification of what we are registering.

as.     
       

In fact, the presentments (results) are not so clear cut.  Sure--at times the are and that is when you 'pounce on it and pounce, fast & hard' and yet--other times, probably better than 50% of the times you actually play--they are not so clear.

Problem is, we confuse ourselves, with the way I play or even if you have a 'set method' you sit there and watch people winning huge--on long streaks of repeating hands or long and beautiful chop-chop or an extra long doubles, etc.  People get influenced, period.

In so many cases, the match between observations and expectations do not (DO NOT) equal the reality that comes about.  It might for a few hands and then once your confidence builds and builds, it bites you and your mind begins to tell you, "Wager the opposite of what you think and you will certainly win" or, follow the PHO eating chubby Viet guy speaking in broken English about how the dragon's tale is going to be so long, it is a females 'love you long time dream'!!", etc., etc., etc.  You laugh and you place your $100.00 wager and the Viet dude places table max of $5,000.00 and wins.  Then you follow him....................end of my morning story.

Three. four players, experienced or not--talking at the baccarat table.  Right then and there, the smart one will hear only, "We talked and talked and pointed and played.  We won and lost.  We lost and won.  What does it all mean?  We compared different expectations to the same observations and reality produced what some of us thought and as well, produced what some of us did not think". 

BTW, there was this Viet dude at the casino a couple of weeks ago, and he points to the tail forming on the appropriate road on the score board and starts saying, "Love you long time--just like the song--Banker love you long time---wager on it".......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12tce-THLUE

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. 

How much are candy bars there in the UK?  Most here are $1.39 to $1.99 but occasional at one of the bigger markets we can buy them for right at .89 but only sometimes.  Not gas stations or c-stores.

Asym,

Back on subject.  As you said in context, "Notice that more likely than not, an early P 3+ streak apperance will followed by many 3+ streaks than what the opposite situation will do.  Especially whether such 3+ streak is immediately followed by another identical 3+ streak. ",  I would have to put that and that into my own 'identifiable events' whereas--classically strong player side presentations in the beginning, tend to continue the gravitation of producing multiple player repeats (whatever the number is) as compared to Banker winning repeats.  In the beginning of the shoe is much more prevalent and noticeable to myself--and certainly has raised my eyebrows for quite some time.

I hope I expressed myself correctly. 

Thanks, Lungyeh.  As you know we talk on the side and your opinion means a lot to me. I'm trying to fix the things on the board with Vic and I've been talking to him about some of the concerns you've expressed to me. I do have respect for the mathematicians it's just that I've expressed my opinions about the interpretation of the statistical analysis in relation to wagering and I think you would agree with it.  Even if it is correct the order of it is no better than flipping a coin it's all in the control and everything else I've detailed out at great length and took lots of time to put onto the board, if it's too complicated and too detailed so be it, everyone can gamble the way that they gamble and they're at the mercy of their soul and their emotional feelings that will blind their judgment the highest majority of the times, we've all been there.  I feel sorry for the inexperienced ones that go in and wager their hard-earned money or all their life savings on something that cannot come about the way that they've been told it will come about. Thanks again.

I wholeheartedly apologize to AsymBacGuy for taken that space within your thread as it is kind of 'off-topic' but I answered the question that was presented to me within your thread/room.

Quote from: Mike on April 28, 2018, 10:53:00 AM
Yes I've noticed.    I don't know why, but it's very common for gambler's to think they know better than mathematicians and to distrust or dismiss computer simulations (perhaps because "no one plays a million shoes"  ). But maybe I'm being presumptuous. What exactly is your objection to theory or simulation?

It doesn't really make sense to say that something works FOR YOU, because that implies it might not work for someone else. Suppose there are other players at your table who believe that you're the world's greatest bacc player, so they mirror all your bets perfectly. Obviously if it works for you then it must also work for them, and if you're winning they are also winning (and ditto if you're losing).

On the other hand, if it really is the case that your strategies don't work for others, but they do for you, then the only conclusion to be drawn is that your winnings are based on luck, not on the actual strategies. If something works then it works, period. Only if luck is the overriding factor does it happen that the same system/strategy played by different people or at different times results in sometimes winning, sometimes losing. The lack of consistency tells you it's just randomness at work and that the method is worthless.

**********************************************************************************************************

Mike, with all do respect to yourself, I will copy and paste an answer I took a few minutes to just post to Xander, because he is aligned with yourself and your questioning or comments to myself about my posts.  And, there is a lack of consistencies within the way I wager on 'playing the shoe' if one analyzes what I wagered on based on what happened or appears on the score board, etc.  But I do have huge consistency in the way I gamble with tons of protocol based upon psychology, money management, thinking, emotional feeling, my ability to identify possible identifiable events and opportunities, as well as everything I have written about and explained and took great time to define--write and exploit.  It works great and is profitable to a certain point if one can apply it with all the situations, events and feelings as well as the most fallible of all--gamblers self inflicted doom from apply his desires to the unknown results that are being produced to himself that he fails to recognize.  Again, I have written about them and since you disagree and do not feel I have the proper intelligence, experience or knowledge--why read or follow or ask me questions? 

But as I said, Here is my answer to you out of respect and courtesy to your question.  Quote from me as I said:


Yes, I do and have known that.

Yes, I understand their mathematical skills and knowledge.

Yes, their statistics and their simulations/theories are probably correct for the series and the amount of shoes that they test.  I have never challenged those or said those were wrong or inaccurate, not by any means.  And if I did, it was meant in the context of what I was sitting in front of or have experienced for the evening or session, etc.

However, I have played this game since Atlantic City came about continuously.  I have learned boats loads about the reality of gambling, gambling players, the casino, psychology, the effects of winning and losing, the benefits of deciphering certain things the game brings about, the system of hosting--comps--average plays--casino comp theory--money management--benefits of a player remaining neutral--reality of bank rolls and buy-ins, the application of a players mind and what he is engaged in, etc., etc., and so on.

In other words, 'tons of stuff'.  I do not play every hand/every situation--event/every shoe the same and have no 'system or preset scheduled beliefs', with wagering schedules, etc.  IMO, if one does--you will at best (hopefully) break even eventually.  I wholeheartedly, through my experience believe that there are numerous opportunities and events that might come about and when they do--wagering for a definitive type of outcome, will have devastating results to a serious player.

It is the same exact thing in my business of hazardous materials and high risk incident management.  I have personally witnessed many very intelligent and highly educated engineers coming on scene in the field during an emergency.  Basically they know more than me in countless ways about chemical composition and the technical aspect of the spilled or released product.  But as far as cleaning up the site with the Department of Transportation or County Emergency Managers and the State Environmental Officials as well as the EPA, Railroad Environmental Departments or the Bureau of Indian Affairs,  with all the other restrictions, rules and regulations we have to and do follow, those highly educated and super-university diploma holding professors, engineers and related, are bothersome, get in the way, apply needless information and data having no value whatsoever in the field, do not meet emergency response certifications and lack extreme basic sense and protocols at the sit--so many times.  There are countless courses, certifications and much needed experience to work in the field, safely, legally and meeting regulations set forth by the state and the federal governments, that renders the type of people with great knoweldge, completely useless and even illegal in the field at an emergency site.

The same thing IMO, holds true for the casino gambling table in so many ways.  I do have non-mechanical and non preset wagering that works much higher than the majority of the times for me.  I have attempted to identify many of them within my writing here and the reason so many, such as yourself--do not agree with me and desire to challenge, twist my words around, add innuendoes and spar--is that you follow and abide by the mathematical statistics of the game of baccarat.  Period.  Not much room for discussion because  you and some others like yourself will continually challenge, without offering your 'holy-grail' that allow you to continually win and be so successful at the game.  Are you actually wealthy and very successful in the classical definition of those words at playing baccarat?  I don't know about the words and the challenges you consistently offer on the board-leaves many to believe you are.  All fine and I am happy for you if you are.  But I know, IMO and experience, for the same thing with using the results of both of those individuals you endorse and follow, will allow you to win and lose.  Again (IMO and experience) boils down to all the things I have defined, that has nothing or not much to do with the math and the statistics of game as to what will or will not happen.  There is so much more to the game of baccarat (in a live casino wagering actual money) rather than sitting at home on the computer in theory or even on-line gambling.   

So the same thing holds true, if you do not employ many or all the this I have written about, defined, suggested and exploited myself, there is no possible way you can multiple and continue winning using your conversion of mathematical statics of the game or by sprinkling magical dust on the cards in front of you, while you go through a one minute ritual of peeling and peeking at the cards themselves.  Period, pretty much the end of the story.

So, in this case and all others it is really no darn different than the old fashioned car drag strip.  The first one to the end wins.  No matter what colors, what training, what beer they drink, whom their sponsors are what energy drinks or soda pop they have decals for or if one is a country boy or an acid rocker with tattoos over his eyes and nipples.  Does not matter.  If my car beat yours, I was faster, drove better, had more skill and had a better pit crew and took advantage of other situations I found at the time, no matter what they were.  As long as I did not get disqualified for cheating or getting caught at cheating, I won fair and square and no matter the reason, I WON!  Period.  If your car beat mine, the same thing applies to you.  Period.  However, back in the pits, the same exact thing will be going one that happens at the baccarat table.  You will come over to me and say, "Yeah.....but---------", and then go on about how your lane had a bit of extra oily media & debris that gave me an advantage and only because  of that, I was able to beat you but in all actuality, you are better, faster and more experienced than myself, etc., etc., and so on and forth.  As you poke me in the chest and tell me all that gibberish and self serving rubbish, while everyone has a beer or a Corona and a lime or a paper plate of nachos-cheese and jalapenos in front of them watching and waiting for the fight to break out.  And back at the casino, you and others are there pushing money back and forth and applying mathematical statistical data and all that.  Great!  Fantastic!  I begin playing and it is like my buddy H-Money that called me.  Say I was at the shoe.  When those bankers came along for 6 Bankers right after a 9 handed chop-chop, I pounced on it--for whatever reason I convinced myself or that I saw coming.  Does not matter the reason.  Say I wagered $500.00, parlayed a couple of times.  While the rest of the table cited all kinds of 'cut' has to come out reasons.  I won 6 times lost once, they lost 5 times and won once.  It also happiness with a 20 series chop-chop event and as well with a 15 or 20 handed repeating banker or player run.

That same thing I referred to happened at the baccarat table.  H-Money my buddy called me a few weeks ago when he was continually losing money at the tables.  He tells me, "Hey Glen tell me what I should do.  The shoe started out and it was 9 time chop-chop and then 6 bankers came out and then 3 pairs of doubles and then 6 more bankers that matched exactly the first little run of bankers".  Totally impossible without being there and seeing what the numbers of the winning and losing hands were and many other things.  Even then, of course--my way of identifying events and opportunities work and do not work.  The trick that I mastered and serves me well, is within my money management, my side parlays, a bit of positive progressions, my beliefs and ability to identify certain events and as well--have the knoweldge and the willpower to 'pounce on them' while staying completely neutral and viewing as well as believing, I am using tools instead of money, etc., and everything else (once again stating) that I have written about and that works well or me.  Can I lose with my knowledge and my system of beliefs?  YES.  Can I win with them?  YES.  But when I won over $40,000.00 the other week I wrote about and posted pictures of, I lost about $15,000.00 of it one night employing what I call stupid statistical intelligence and following what I thought would be another easy and fun win.  I was dead wrong and no matter what I did, follow other players, follow myself, listen to dealers, wager on superstition or employ what I did on other shoes or the exact opposite, I would lose.  I went against everything I write about and know--in other words I admit what almost no one this board will admit, I was dead-on 100% stupid and foolish thinking I could do something that I would overrule and command with knowledge and experience.  And the irony of it was, if I did employ and use my 'systems' that I adopted and write about--I would not have lost that $15,000.00 I brought to the casino.  If you cannot or will not think and apply what will govern and assist you to win large and lose small, you will suffer and suffer with great pain at the game of baccarat.  Simple, an IMO--period.   You can debate that, I cannot and will not.

So in closing, do my systems work, yes for me. Will they work for another player, sure why not?  Are they exclusive to myself?  In some ways yes and some ways no.  Why?  Because I tailor them to my own situation, beliefs and financial position.  I truly gamble what I have set aside and I do it with the protocol that my buy-ins are tools and my tool box is strong and can absorb the loss or loan out of tools until I replace them.  I have three sets of financial envelopes.  Every week or two I build them or use them for their sources.  One is for all household expenses, another is for the kids and my family and future reserves.  The third is for gaming.  None of the envelopes or banks are ever intermingled, which i learned a while ago is dead-on wrong.  My buy-ins are a small portion of my bank roll.  My wins far out number the amounts of my losses and I also reset and refresh during a shoe as well as at the end of the shoe and most importantly, at the end of each winning and losing session.  I did not at the end of the 3rd one a few weeks ago and that is why I lost  $15,000.00 instead of $600.00 to $1,500.00 range.  I proved beyond any reasonable doubt to myself that my systems and beliefs and experiences--if intermingled in my own way, work darn good with great safe-stops and protection.

I hope this clarifies the misunderstanding you have of me and the failure you show in reading the other writings of mine.  Quite simply, two people playing a pinball machine, each with their own style, beliefs and mixture of feelings, experiences and knowledge of what might or might not happen can easily succeed numerous times or fail countless times.  What leads myself a bit above others,most times--is my ability to cut losses while or before they happen and as well, to compound and quickly build winnings far above the average player that analyzes the wrong way into the shoe before it is happening or ever will come about while he is there gambling.

But, as far as following a certain written protocol based upon mathematical statistics that a certain hand or even number of hands will produce a certain outcome in baccarat, is beyond foolish and absurd to me.  And, if that does work--by all means follow it and stay within the casino without challenging me by twisting my words and looking to spar. Then when you grow tired of winning, contribute that great knowledge you possess to the board here and others.   
************************************************************************************************************
"es I've noticed.    I don't know why, but it's very common for gambler's to think they know better than mathematicians and to distrust or dismiss computer simulations (perhaps because "no one plays a million shoes"  ). But maybe I'm being presumptuous. What exactly is your objection to theory or simulation?"

I have no objection to it.  But, IMO--it does not belong at the table for wagering decisions on a consistent and ritual basis.  We/I are actually playing those very trivial amount of shoes each session that is the smallest and tiny-est section of what made up those numbers.  And, those are the ones that contain everything but what those statistical averages total to.  Or in some cases, can be the exact representation of those statistical averages learned and published.  But in either case, if a gambler fails to employ what I have written about, detailed, explained and found to be true the highest majority of times with money management, psychology, the aura, other players, etc., etc., etc., he will only devastate and destruct himself while gambling.

To address my final concern here, I feel as though your last paragraph is demeaning and an attempt to discredit and/or humiliate.  But, I will address it the best I can.  You said: "On the other hand, if it really is the case that your strategies don't work for others, but they do for you, then the only conclusion to be drawn is that your winnings are based on luck, not on the actual strategies. If something works then it works, period. Only if luck is the overriding factor does it happen that the same system/strategy played by different people or at different times results in sometimes winning, sometimes losing. The lack of consistency tells you it's just randomness at work and that the method is worthless."  I usually say (IMO) and (Works for me), etc., because  I don't inflict my ways on others I gamble with, even H-Money and my NYC retired cop life long friend and X-'LE' partner.  I have other gambling buddies that are casino only friends and co-players, etc.  I don't preach to them or attempt to convince them, sure we might small talk and dare each other, in casino 'spirit and fun' which brings about huge amounts of god camaraderie to us--but I am not ingrained in all the ways so many gamblers and casino players are in baccarat.  Meaning, wagering for such and such, because of 'so and so'.  And to me, that is what following statistical and mathematics does to a play in baccarat because they all too often forget about everything the game actually takes to win or hold their winnings.  I only do that for certain sections and opportunities that I can identify at times when they are happening.  Period.  There are such opportunities that can be identified by an experienced player, but the problem in definition and as well in profitability of doing that--is that the identifiable event is intangible.  You will most certainly stop me short--disbelief of myself and twist my words such as Xander does and use them against me.  That is what you are doing here.  On the other hand, I combat randomness by use of everything I have written about, no need to attempt the explanation in short--definitive combat here.  I Cannon due it because it would involve too many subjects.  A lot of those are in that 'Series of 10' articles within my Blog on this board on the first page within the highlighted section. 

If you love going to the casino and do well at wagering for a continual 'cut' because of something or say wagering for a SAP/VIN count and all that, great!  Do it, I don't go and challenge you and your skill, knowledge or unique findings and positive exploits that allow yourself to win based upon whatever they might be.  But you certainly, with definitive nature and wording discount and attempt discredit of what I write about.  At least IMO and my interpretations of your statements that reflect directly and solely to myself. 

Quote from: Mike on April 27, 2018, 04:39:58 PM
Why is your way better?

There are no "indications" of what will happen in either game.

I do not believe I ever claimed it to work definitively or be better, as you say?  If I did, I meant it in the context of 'working' and 'better' for me.  I have tried other ways and I attempt to define and explain what works in reality, in B&M for me or does not work for me.  I do not engage in theory or simulation with my writing and results thereof, etc.

I hope that clarifies what you say, I claim is 'better'. 

But I have definitely found what identifies many of the opportunities that will present themselves in the shoes, that work well for me the majority of the times I play, (IF) I remain free of player distractions, aura, desires and other psychology effects I self-inflict, etc.   

The below quote is one of mine:

"The key is, like a lot wagering in bac--do not define events that have to happen and wager on them to happen in order to win, wager on what is happening and/or for the opportunities that are presenting themselves or possibly will if there are indications as to that is what might occur."

I understand the need for many to turn that statement around, but to myself--it is vastly different than a player doing 'blind guessing' and longer series of scheduled wagers that are preset, scheduled and must appear in the order that matches up to your decisions that you are convinced will be produced or perhaps (if you were honest) 'you are hopeful will appear in the same sequence you pulled from statistics', etc.