08 Show Posts - AsymBacGuy

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 ... 44 45 46 47 48 [49] 50 51 52 53 54 ... 60 Next
721
Gizmotron / Re: The Negation of Disadvantage by Selective Options
« on: December 01, 2015, 10:01:17 pm »
The trick to taking advantage of these few opportunities is in positioning yourself first by not getting way behind in the session before reaching these opportunities in the first place. I know how to stay at even real easy. That skill must be learned first. 50/50 bets are great for this purpose. Attacking a sleeping dozen that sleeps from 15 to 30 spins in a row is easier still.

I hope you like these simple aspects of the game even more.

Well, I have to admit that another very serious roulette player I've known keep saying the same things you are writing. So I begin to trust you.

Coincidentally, more or less, it's the same way of thought I apply at baccarat with 1 billion accuracy.

The differences with baccarat is that here we get a lower mathematical negative edge, finite card distributions and an asymmetrical factor.

So if you've found some positive expectation hints at roulette I think that at baccarat your edge should be higher.

as.







 

722
Baccarat Forum / Re: Betting Every Hand
« on: December 01, 2015, 09:49:59 pm »
Without a defined advantage in any particular situation likely or unlikely has nothing to do with it.

I caution to hold unto your wallet when it comes to asymbac.  Keep in mind he has told people he has deep pockets himself so why would he need to use your money to increase his wealth?

Further, if you are not aware he has posted on different sites the same dialog about an imminent book explaining all.  One that he wishes to sell!

Remember the adage:  If it looks like a duck . . .

I'd never disappoint a player trusting me.

as.


 

     

 

 

 

 

723
General Discussion / Re: Lung Yeh
« on: December 01, 2015, 09:24:02 pm »
I'm really sorry for Lung loss. Losing control at this game is very easy, it happened to everyone of us.
 
For everyone thinking that every bet will be 50/50 placed with negative expectation with no points of valid intervention no matter what, I just say "LOL".

as.



 

724
Gizmotron / Re: The Negation of Disadvantage by Selective Options
« on: December 01, 2015, 09:02:12 pm »
I can't play more than 300 spins in a session. There are often three or four magnificent opportunities that occur every 300 spins.

Even though I strongly think that roulette is an unbeatable game, for some reasons I like this statement.


as.   

 




725
General Discussion / Re: To all maths expert in roulette.....
« on: November 25, 2015, 04:25:54 am »
@ AsymBacGuy - Thanks for the reply. Is it possible to explain how do u come up with the 1.56% please.

It seems to me that by playing 9 lines, or 27 numbers for 3 spins with a light progression, the probability for
losing is extremely low. Do u agree....?

Cheers

Rouletta

Hi rouletta!

Considering an european wheel and zero excluded, betting 27 numbers out of 36 means to have a 25% probability of losing each time. So 0,25 x 0.25 x 0.25 = 1.5625%.

To get an easier example, let's say you want to hope not to get three red in row.

So 0.50% x 0.50% x 0.50% = 12.5% of losing, that is 1 time every 8.

In fact there are 8 possible dispositions of 3 spins in a row: BBB, BBR, BRB, BRR, RBB, RBR, RRB and RRR. Just one disposition is a losing one.

Since your probability is right the half of the above situation everytime, you'll divide 12.5% 3 times getting 6.25, 3.125 and the final 1.5625 probability.

Unfortunately no matter how many numbers you'll wager, the probability of losing will be proportionally placed.

The highest probability to win when betting roulette numbers on an european wheel is placing 36 numbers out of 37, but it needs 144 units to win just one unit.
The trick to get a profit even betting 36 numbers relies on the fact that some bets are cumulatively placed on 50/50 chances, so getting a 50% return when the zero comes out.

Cheers

as.   
     

726
Baccarat Forum / Re: Betting Every Hand
« on: November 25, 2015, 03:52:49 am »
Thanks gr8player and I strongly think that if someone wants to consistently try to win at this game it's you one of the person to look for.

During my years of studying this game I collected every kind of average statistical information available.
I know the average probability of almost every possible pattern coming up per every shoe.
Some patterns are almost 50/50 placed, others aren't.   
But as I many times pointed out, the word "average" doesn't fit with a long term winning plan.

The fact that 99,9999% of bac players are losers is due to their ignorance, trying to get the best of it within too short terms.
Almost every player thinks that after 2-3 or more losing shoes the expected more likely favourable outcomes must come out, ignoring that some unexpected losing runs (or worse yet, some simple WL ratio quick assessments) tend to show up in clusters or not coming at all.
In that regard the member sqzbox provided a scientific work about that somewhere.

Long term data show that some more likely outcomes can last per many shoes, obviously.
Therefore we should continue to ride the positive wave, not fearing the possible upcoming RTM effect.
   
But whenever a slight unexpected event comes out, we should put the brakes on.

This is just a statistical effect tested on millions of shoes.

And it's just a variance issue.

Imo, and I'm not alone to state this, to better evaluate what it's happening we should consider a strict betting placement and not trying to guess hand after hand.

as.

727
General Discussion / Re: To all maths expert in roulette.....
« on: November 25, 2015, 01:17:28 am »
Ignoring zero, it should be around 1.56%.
And of course there's no difference to change or not moving bets.   

as.


728
AsymBacGuy / Re: The key asymmetrical factor
« on: November 22, 2015, 11:27:29 pm »
In a word and if you want to consistently win at baccarat, you must know that the game is asymmetrical by any means.

No one hand will be formed by perfectly symmetrical features for two reasons:

- first, a decent portion of the total hands will be mathematically B shifted;

- secondly, every next hand will be more or less influenced by the cards previously removed.

Just to give a vulgar example, we know that 8s and 9s hugely removed from the deck are going to get more B oriented hands as P chance won't get a fair percentage of natural points not giving the B side an advantage.
Better sayed, any hand not giving the possibility to P chance drawing isn't going to produce an asymmetrical hand giving the B side an advantage.

It's true that shoes' portions rich of 7s and 6s aren't going to form many asymmetrical hands since P side will show more likely 6 or 7 points, but at least we know that B side has the opportunity either to win by drawing or by showing a natural, besides the cut and dried 7-6 scenario.

Anyway, we cannot care a bit about the card counting procedures, as the general dispositions/distributions topic will make the job fo us ITLR.

Therefore the game is asymmetrical for one reason or another.

Statistically the best tool we can take advantage of is studying what happens itlr on each side.

We don't want to guess what happens most in a shoe WHOLLY considered. We want to register each side separately.

Better sayed, we want to know what most likely happens on each side.

Is this a randomly world?

Yes and no.

Most part of it it will.

Nonetheless, itlr some patterns are more likely than others by 100% accuracy.

Back to a perfect strategy plan, meaning the help of a pc software capable to weight the card removal impact, we know that 3/4 of the hands must be B oriented and just nearly more than 1/5 of the total hands (ties included) are P side favored.

Such result come out from a perfect card by card removal effect (with proper burning cards value) dictating that only some hands are BP favored onto a side or another.

Anyway, we don't want to be favorite on every bet we are wagering. We do want to bet some hands where one side is hugely favored over the the counterpart, no matter the cards distribution.

This is a really nonsense.
How could be in the position to be right more often than not if we're not taking account of cards removed from the deck?

For once, the law of averages will help us.

Average card distributions might help one side no matter the third card rule, yet itlr either the asymmetrical factor or the general card distribution must take place at a higher level capable to invert the negative edge values.

Unfortunately or fortunately, it takes some time to this feature to show up but it will.

as.   

 


 

 




 


 

 




   

     


729
Baccarat Forum / Re: Betting Every Hand
« on: November 22, 2015, 10:14:47 pm »
Jim, I just wonder if you have ever considered to restrict your bets in order to try to get a minor variance impact and less volatile outcomes.

Of course if both your betting selection and MM are capable to get decently low fluctuations you don't need any "waiting" periods.

In reality I too applied for a long time a high frequency betting plan utilizing a 4-5 step raise of my units when I encountered some expected more profitable outcomes; at the end I've found that only those more selected bets were slightly having the best of it. The rest perfectly fit the old known disadvantage.

Starting from this supposedly slight (and diluted) advantage, I worked trying to spot better edges right on those patterns. And that, imo, means to wait and wait. And to carefully register the outcomes.

Imo and according to gr8player writings, only a strict general betting plan could have the best of it, providing a careful assessment of every step we are going to bet or to register without betting.

Again imo, the more we're going into details, the better will be our results, leaving the least place to the obvious random world even if it will be profitable for us.

I don't want to bet 3 units just because I've lost a given series of previous real bets, hoping to get a RTM effect.
Better sayed, I want to bet my high unit knowing that itlr I'll have the best of it.
And the more I wait (even missing many winning spots) the better should be my outcomes.

I don't want to be in the position to win 20-30 or more units in a very small interval of time. That means to easily and invariably lose 20-30 hands (plus the negative edge and a higher vig impact) into a short amount of time, no matter how sophisticated or good is our bet selection or MM.

Variance should be kept in low terms by not betting at all rather than evaluating small betting amounts, unless you use a huge spread betting plan.

as.     

730
Baccarat Forum / Re: Betting Every Hand
« on: November 17, 2015, 10:38:51 pm »
When I say every hand I am meaning pretty much every hand until I quit the shoe.  Could be 15 hands could be 75 hands - depends.  Just want to make that clear.

But I need a reason to quit just as I need a reason to bet.  I start every shoe the same way and generally make up my mind what bet placement to use after about 5 hands.  There is no good way to start a shoe.  You either win or lose.  Occasionally I'll lose 5-7 hands or win 5-7 hands out of the gate but not often.  Most of the time I'm either up or down a few units or brake even.

So I was a little bored Sunday and decided to hit the casino.  I generally don't play on weekends and as usual there was no seats but just as I planned to leave a seat opened up and I sat.  The shoe opened up with ppppB and it put me up 1 unit.  I chose my bet placement and the shoe went ppppBBppBBBppBBpp which gave me +11 units.  I am betting every hand and not losing more than 1IAR.  Tell me why I should quit betting every hand and wait for some trigger or variance.  After that the shoe went BBppBBppBBpBBpBBBppBpBB.  At one point I won 10 IAR and am now having a very good shoe and then lost 2 IAR for the first time.  Next the shoe went ppBBBB and here I quit losing 2 IAR again.  I sat and watched pBBBpBBB go by and just left.  I made 46 bets.  W32 for a 69% WR.

Now. . .  obviously if anyone is paying attention that with an overall 52 or 53% WR I get a LOT of shoes that are well below 50%.  In those shoes I am NOT making a whole lot of bets and trying to keep my unit losses low.  Sure, I could get two shoes IAR where I get a 38% WR.  Even though I may only have accumulated 30 bets total in those two shoes that will really knock the hell out of a win %.  I also get a lot of shoes that are 47, 48, 49.  In those shoes I can still come out a head many times - not always.

Why wouldn't I bet every hand in this shoe?

Point is if I wait for some trigger than how many units might I miss in a shoe like this?  Depends on the trigger doesn't it?  That's why I use different "triggers" (bet placements).

This shoe is consistent.  Could be a whole different kind of shoe but still have uniform consistency and be a great winning shoe.

ppppBBppBBBppBBppBBppBBppBBpBBpBBBppBpBBppBBBBpBBBpBBB

This is the shoe you've played/observed.

ppppBBppBBBppBBppBBppBBppBBpBBpBBBppBpBBppBBBBpBBBpBBB

This shoe perfectly fits a general plan I mentioned many times in my posts. Let's say is almost perfect, there's just one losing spot and 24 winnings. You made a lot better than that, congrat!

Let's say is a very deviated situation of what happens most likely by astounding degrees. expecially noticing that:

- There's just one B single and 12 B streaks

- There's just one 3+ P streak and 12 P singles and doubles.

Interesting to notice that such "heavenly" shoe contains a very unlikely sequence of 8 doubles in a row.   

I would have just bet a couple of spots here, so you made a very brilliant play winning 46 units.

as.

 

 
     






731
Baccarat Forum / Re: Know What You Can't Do
« on: November 14, 2015, 11:40:28 pm »
I get that and don't necessarily refute such.  It's just that, frankly, we've been hearing a lot about that but . . . where's the beef?

Jim, within a decent amount of trials the general features of the game cannot be disappointed.
Sometimes it takes a long time to get such features happening.

After 1 shoe, the features could be easily disappointed. Even after 2,3 or 5 shoes.
Within a 10 shoe period, such features must appear, at worst almost levelling the previous unexpected outcomes.

This situation cannot be found at other 50/50 games.

In a word, a given most likely situation cannot miss for long time.

as.



 

 

 


732
Baccarat Forum / Re: Betting Every Hand
« on: November 14, 2015, 11:18:49 pm »
Mmmh, generally speaking the difference between betting toward streaks and betting a chopping mood is that in the first case we have to bet every hand hoping to get a streak of a decent lenght; in the second scenario we could get rid of such long streaks stopping to bet at a given level, knowing that a long streaks shoe is very very unlikely and anyway a dominated streaks shoe is mainly composed by short streaks.

True, a FTL strategy will produce just one loss and hopefully many wins, however a chopping mood will provide just one win everytime a given side will change.

Imo, we better take care of the times when a side hadn't shown a chopping mood than the times where a long streak hadn't taken place.
This because many shoes won't provide any long streaks on one or both sides, conversely very few will form long streaks patterns on both sides.

Of course we have to register the average apparition of both probabilities after very long trials, knowing that the "unlikely" might come out in clusters.

The fact that singles and streaks will equal itlr shouldn't affect our way of thinking, as this is the overall long term situation of both sides.

About the OP topic, I recently witnessed a group of heavy betting players willing to wager every single hand by a super aggressive method. They were doing very good, properly (imo) shifting the betting side, but imo they didn't take care of the "enemy" pattern distribution, even if they were capable to find out the flaws of the game.

Anyway this was the best "every hand strategy" I've ever known of.

as. 

 

 






 



 

 

   


 

 


 


 


 
 

733
Baccarat Forum / Re: Know What You Can't Do
« on: November 11, 2015, 03:10:11 am »
Now asymbacc says he HAS an edge.  A predictable advantage from some past set of circumstance.  That's an edge!  Except it's still a mystery.  got to wait for the book I guess.

It's not the past to influence the future, it's just the rules and the nature of the game which RESTRICT the possible outcomes.

as.
   




734
Baccarat Forum / Re: Betting Every Hand
« on: November 11, 2015, 02:56:08 am »
Hi Jim.

You have stated that without a mathematical edge there's no point to wait. True, yet from a statistical point of view a kind of edge will appear, IMO.

If a person is capable to guess right more often than not playing every hand by BS and MM, good for him. It means he has an edge. Not different from mine or others who prefer to wait.

To decide to wait implies the idea that things will be restricted into decent detectable terms.
An example is when I know that a given event (better sayed a multiple class of events) cannot miss me  more than 4-5 times in a row.
Of course exceptions are the rule in gambling, still I prefer to rely on those observations.

To get such "heavenly" circumstance, I have to wait, wait, register and wait.
Maybe it's the same operation you make wagering every hand using a strategy taken from a different angle.

Even my strategy is a different form of trending, as I don't have any mathematical edge.

If you'll decide to purchase my book for the most part you won't find complicated formulas or sophisticated registrations or holy grail findings. My main strategy is quite simple even if it took me several years of study to find out something worth of it.

I know that by betting every hand and by mostly trending (and guessing) you have an excellent win rate, maybe it's me to have to buy your possible book, not you. ;-)

as. 

 

 
 

 



 

 

 

   

 
 





 










 

 

 

 

735
Baccarat Forum / Re: Know What You Can't Do
« on: November 08, 2015, 11:27:55 pm »
Hi Jimskie!

Wait, I sayed that gr8player answer was the best he/she could provide as he/she cannot identify a verified edge.
I strongly believe that without a verified edge we are in big trouble to make a living at this game. At the same time, gr8player got my respect because he (for simplicity I assume is a man) illustrated many useful general approaches to get the best of it at baccarat.

Gr8player ideas of diluting the betting, properly considering the w/l ratios not in term of shoes or single sessions played but wholly assessed are, imo, viable options to get the best of it no matter what. After all, casinos aren't worried about a couple of losing sessions, we players do and this thing tend to worsen our game.
Moreover, he spoke about a "recovering plan". For what I know, the most brilliant gambling systems not including a mathematical edge have considered such important tool. I don't know the details of his recovering strategy, but again the idea is well placed.
In a word and imo, gr8player's posts are valuable in a sense or another.
 
Nonetheless I prefer to rely onto an edge. A verified edge, that is a statistical (or mathematical) very long term proof that my bets will win more often than not by a mechanical bet selection strategy.

There are many systems capable to get a mathematical edge over the house, all focused on the side bets. Few players utilize them and this is a pity as almost all high stakes rooms offer huge maximum side bets limits.
Of course a mathematical edge means counting cards and carefully registering them, a thing many high stakes players aren't willing to do.
Unfortunately and even though many casinos continue to offer very deep shoe penetrations (excellent for card counting procedures) there's a possible countermeasure. Yes, burning cards or cutting away from the play a substantial final portion of the 8-deck shoe). This being the case, we're done.

About BP bets nothing emerged in the literature, so the BP bets are considered unbeatable worldwide.
Yes, mathematically speaking they are (or better sayed they are insignificantly beatable by a card counting method).

After years of studying I've found that this is not the case.
My conclusion came from very long pc and real observations, maybe gr8player got the same conclusion by another perspective.
Both conclusions are scientifically unaccepted as fully denied by mathematics.

Good for us.
Once it was the sun to circle around the Earth, isn't it?

My book will be released soon, I don't know if it will be widely spread or restricted to few.
The reason to restrict its diffusion is because I don't 100% trust live automatic shuffler machines after possibly having instructed by humans what to do.

We never know.

as. 



 





 
 

 
   

 

 



 
     

Pages: Prev 1 ... 44 45 46 47 48 [49] 50 51 52 53 54 ... 60 Next