BetSelection.cc

Please login or register.

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.

Messages - AsymBacGuy

Pages: Prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 49 Next
31
Baccarat Forum / Re: 2 of the biggest reasons that most players lose
« on: April 15, 2019, 09:41:35 pm »
#1: absolutely correct, I'm telling this since 1980 :-)

#2: I do not know where are you playing at,  but in the cardrooms I'm used to attend almost nobody is going to bet vs streaks or long chops. Still such players are losers as they tend to increase their wagers in the effort to break even after a losing period. 

as.







 




 


32
One thing for sure, Al.
Your thoughts are really worthwhile.

Moreover, this site provided great inputs from people like you, Sputnik, Jimskie, Bally, gr8player, greenguy, Lungyeh, roversi, rolexwatch and many others now I do not recall the nickname.

Put the thoughts together and this game is 100% beatable itlst (in the longest terms)

as.





 

 



33
Interesting thoughts.

Really.

as.

34
Don't you think that ties displayed by separate entities could be a bit confusing?

as.




35
You are the scientist, mathematician and statistician analyst.  You been working on this for how many years?  Were even going to write  book about it.  What is it that you have to report after all this time?

J

I've been studying this game for 8 years long, I think the game is beatable only as decks are not properly shuffled.
My best accomplishment was and still is when I was contacted by a couple of high stakes players willing to be mentored by me and getting me a cut on their winnings. And, you know, it's a lot of money when people are wagering $5000 or more per hand.

My final conclusion is that the game can't be beaten mathematically or "humanly", the solution remains in the middle (virtus in medio stat)
Key words are time, space and asymmetry.

Time: you need time to get some searched probabilities happening. And of course time may work in casino's favor mathematically or in player's favor statistically. It's up to us to decide when and how. 

Space: baccarat is made by finite portions of probability. Many factors work in that. 

Asymmetry: a constant slight asymmetry works either by rules and/or by actual conditions (card distributions, outcomes' nature, etc).
For example, it's impossible (not only high unlikely) to get certain dispositions in the same position shoe per shoe.

as.






36
Two of the several point you have illustrated are, imo, of special importance:

- the reasons why we got a W are the same why we got a L.
We humans can't interfere with the natural process of forming hands.

- point of no return.

Many think the point of no return happens whenever we have lost a lot and odds dictate we are very very dog to recover the money lost.

Wrong!

Point of no return could happen even though we are losing just 2, 3 or 4 hands.
Actually long L patterns happen right when LL or LLL or LLLL situations show up.
In order to win we need more W hands than L ones and the probability that a losing sequence will stop should restricted to just one step (LW) or, at most to LLW.
Balancements are not acting so promptly, everyone here knows that a LLLL sequence won't be followed by an instant WWWW pattern. (Think how is unlikely to get BBBBPPPP or PPPPBBBB)

That is when we had the "misfortune" to be behind, we must act very cautiously as we are more likely to lose again WITHIN SHORT TERMS.

Every bac player should sit at the table with a bankroll of 10 units trying to defend it at any cost.
The goal is not to win something but to preserve it.
Of course bets won add to player's bankroll reducing the probability to lose it and when the bankroll is over the gambling life is finished.

Now I'm asking if anyone is interested to try to guess a lot of hands with the risk of burning out the bankroll or to try to increase the bankroll's life step by step.
On the same line, we'll see that after losing two or three hands we're in the realm of fear and after having collected two or three units we'll make our best effort to preserve them, leaving the "you'll never know" hope to gullible players.

I swear that it's way more profitable (or less disadvantegous) to wager high on rare occasions that to bet low frequently.

Next time you'll sit at a bac table try to play with your last 10 units.
i'm certain you'll finish your session up of something.

as.

 



 



 

 


 
 






 

37
Thanks for your reply Al.

I try to rephrase the point #2.

Every bac player in the universe (me first) will get THE SAME AMOUNT OF W/L HANDS OR THE SAME W/L PATTERNS and even choosing to wager only B side the difference is just 0.18% (0.23% at EZ bac).

Say by playing a given method, I started the session crossing a WWWLW sequence getting me five units of profit (+5).
When I'll encounter the same specular LLLWL sequence, I must lose at most the same number of bets (that is up to -5).
If per every equal specular sequence I'll get more W units than L units I'll be a long term winner.

Thus a WWWWWW sequence (having a 1/64 probability to appear) must give me more units profit than the deficit of what a LLLLLLL sequence produces (having the same 1/64 probability to show up).

It's just a matter of time to get the same amount of WL patterns, unfortunately as we want to be shifted on W side and not aiming to break even, we must expect more L patterns in many situations.

as.

 


 

 
 

 

 


   

 

 



 



 

 


 


 
 



38
I'm looking at this post just now.

I like to work trying to adhere at most by a scientific approach, that is every observation/theory must produce measureable results. And, more importantly, every theory must be proved by falsification.
Did you measure your points?
Human thoughts, instinct or presentments even based on objective outcomes cannot be a valuable guide to get the best of it at baccarat unless they are carefully measured.

And of course the more heterogeneous are the parameters involved in a theory, larger should be the sample confirming such theory.

as.
 

39
In business having money and a forceful/persuasive nature can work well. In the gambling world, not so well and yet these same people never really learned their lesson because another often positive trait in the business world (ego/pride) meant they couldn't accept losing in the casino world. Sad really but the reality of a lot of it.

This.

First, 99.999% of bac players do not know how the fk probabilities work on such game.
For that matter all those geniuses who sell their invincible systems for $49.99 or $49.999 do not know probabilities either. They'll tell you every shoe is beatable for many units or that after 3-4 shoes you'll surely be ahead of many units; it's like they are telling you the rain is stoppable or elicitable by tribal dancing or by human efforts.

Second, for every bet we'll win, being $5 or $50.000, we'll expect to get a $5 or $50.000 losing bet.
Actually losing bets are always $5 or $50.000, winning bets are slightly worse than that.
If we win 10 hands in a row, we must expect the same opposite 10 losing sequence and it's very important to win and lose nearly the same amount on those specular probabilities.
In reality 100% of bac players will lose a lot more on losing sequences than what they win on the same lenght winning patterns. 

Third, under normal circumstances the game is so whimsically produced that we have no means to predict when W/L sequences will equal or deviate from the "norm" besides some complex patterns that need many parameters (and time) to be fulfilled.
Too deviated outcomes are dangerous for opposite reasons: illusion to be a genius from one part or to be unlucky from the other, but they are just the reflex of probability world. 

Casinos do not win more money than math expected because we are unlucky but because we try to be more right than expected by raising our finite wagers into a virtual endless bankroll

Now tell Al's friend to try to get the money back by one unit profit per every 2-3 or more shoes dealt and you know the answer.
Maybe he can manage to set up his standard bet to $5.000 or $10.000 but he won't do that. He thinks to do a lot better than that by guessing and hoping for the best.

as. 


 

 

 
 




 


40
Nice story.

At baccarat it's very easy to win but it's easier to lose.
The fact he quickly found himself up $9500 gave him a negative reinforcement that still persists in his mind.
He better quick to play baccarat as he probably thinks the only problem in his play to be an impaired capacity to keep the money won.
An absolute false statement as it's only a small portion of the whole learning process.

as.


41
Baccarat Forum / Re: Live Trip Reporting 3/28
« on: April 01, 2019, 02:12:05 am »
Perfect, so you seem to agree with me about this.
Everything is about the "frequency" of what we are looking for.

as. 


42
Baccarat Forum / Re: Live Trip Reporting 3/28
« on: April 01, 2019, 01:10:50 am »
I agree that rare events tend to come out in clusters or nothing at all, still there's a huge difference between F-7s/pandas  and 8/9s bad beat.
F-7s have a probability to appear once per 45 hands, 8/9s bad beat once per 250 hands.
That is 5.5 times less likely.
 
I had a lot of trouble trying to get the best of it by using strategies applied on the less disadvantaged B/P hands, let's figure out about hands that have a 16-fold worse probability to appear.

In reality the huge bac bad beat disadvantage could be overcome by card counting and the best opportunity is to count the natural 8s/9s bad beat.
I do not know any valuable card counting regarding the three-card 8/9s bad beat.

as. 

 





 

43
Baccarat Forum / Re: Live Trip Reporting 3/28
« on: March 31, 2019, 09:50:38 pm »
The five 3-card 8/9s bad beat happening into a single shoe isn't a WOW, actually is literally a miracle.
A kind of probability more believable whether the shoe was fixed in some way.
The probability to get ONE 3-card 8/9 bad beat is 0.41% involving the worst house edge (16.65%). The probability to get five such bad beat within a single shoe is something having many zeroes before a number.

About the remaining outcomes:

- a simple "bet two times B after each new occurence of B, then stop the betting until a new B streak shows" strategy worked beautifully until the second section (classified when two B singles came out), then restarted to work on the third section for 3 situations.

- up to the long dragon, P side mantained a costant trend, that is not surpassing the double cutoff, then it restarted to work on section 4.

In some way, even though those are just "post hoc" assumptions, your subdivision seems to be worthwhile.

I'm curious to hear Sputnik or Jimskie impressions (or anybody else) about this shoe.

To make the things more complicated, I dare to make some outcomes' changes:

1- say the fourth P appearance instead of being a single were a P 3 streak, what does this change would do in our strategy?

2- say that in the third section, instead of having a B double in third position we would get a B single. Does it mean something?

Everybody knows here that everything could happen anytime and anywhere but we also know that something must happen.

as.

 

 

 
 


   

44
Really good insights Al, yet not sufficient to get a long term edge.
Surely they are worth to restrict the losing amount up to the math expected value or, at best, to reduce the HE.
And 99.9% of bac players will lose a lot more.

Anyway good points we shouldn't forget when playing this silly game.

as.

 

 


45
AsymBacGuy / Re: Baccarat unbeatable plan #1
« on: March 28, 2019, 04:05:39 am »
At least when I'm sober and focused :-)

as.






 



 


Pages: Prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 49 Next