08 Show Posts - AsymBacGuy


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 9 10 11 ... 53 Next
Yeah, I know Al.
Weird things that happen...

Do not tell me that you have lost on that session having two strong human betting indicators...:-)



Even not knowing the details, it's interesting to notice that in such "fight" the loser have lost almost the double won by the winner.
That's why casinos prosper.

I really do not see how a player gifted with only two neurons could lose a lot by wagering the first shoe displayed.



AsymBacGuy / Re: Baccarat unbeatable plan #1
« on: April 27, 2019, 01:54:23 am »
Thanks Al.
We're speaking the same language even though is taken by different angles.

There's no fkng way that playing into a random taxed model we'll be more right than wrong by instinct or by following trends or by mechanical placements unless we assess carefully what's happening, what's happened so far and what is slightly more likely to happen.
Moreover, we should know what's our real goal per every session played. We can't hope to win every session and we can't break even after an harsh losing session.
Are casinos going to win every fkng day or week? No way.   

The certainty of a given outcome can only be extracted by the proper use of time or by utilizing other tools (defect of randomness for example).


We know that the probability to get a big road shoe without any B or P single or streak or double or 3+ streak is close to zero.
But if we consider the common three additional derived roads is absolutely zero. ZERO. Mathematically.

Going down to some of less likely outcomes and testing a lot of real shoes, we'll see that what happened so far tends to represent it in the same shoe and, at a lesser degree, what not happened so far gets a slightly increased probability to appear.
The process is endorsed by a supposedly flaw of randomness.

The problem is when to start to bet and when to stop it.

It should be an idiocy to stop the betting when crossing a winning streak, but the exact counterpart (stopping to bet when losing) will provide huger benefits.

Casinos want us to gamble, playing every hand or betting side bets.
Therefore we should disappoint their hopes, so betting very few hands (or betting small every hand and wagering 10x or more on key hands).

It's very likely that a team formed by me, Al, Sputnik, roversi, Bally and some others will crush every casino in the world by the simple concept of convergence of probability taken by different angles.
To get a decent profit we must join $1000 or $2000 min tables, let casinos think we're stupi.d gamblers.

Our goal will be to be banned in the casino we're playing at.

Our motto is

put your fkng math edge in your behind


AsymBacGuy / Re: Baccarat unbeatable plan #1
« on: April 23, 2019, 11:05:33 pm »
Thanks for your inputs and replies.

Look how awesome is to know that one specific situation is going to happen (or not) per a given class of shoes dealt.
But the specific situation must be firmly set up in mind BEFORE playing and adjusted accordingly to what the shoe produces but always in terms of "playable" or "not playable" shoe. 

In order to do that we need to take advantage or, even better, to build several random walks endorsing the probability to look for the searched situation.

Playing by instinct or by experience may be valuable random walks but too much affected by emotional and actual factors. More importantly playing instinctively leads to bet too many hands.

Five random walks are directly diplayed on the screen (big road, bead plate road, etc) but we could build infinite random walks even not based upon the B/P results (for example about the first and second card dealt).

For example, one of the artificial road one can easily add is the third to last hand registration.
We wait three resolved hands then the fourth hand will be classified going back three hands, then registering it into two separated columns (S=same, O=opposite).

for example:



Of course there's no a direct value in registering the outcomes in such a way, it's just a ploy to raise the probability to cross the searched situation that could be delayed on other roads.

But the real value of registering multiple random walks simultaneously is whenever our plan dictates to get B or P on more than half of all random walks considered.

The reason is all about the difficulty to get a sudden inversion of probability's plan on many roads, at least on more than half of them.

In case our plan suggests all roads to get the same outcome in the same point (a relatively rare finding even adopting only 3 or 4 roads), our wager will get an astounding EV+.

Despite the wonderful profits such scheme will produce, I know there's a methodological issue to be solved: the presence of ties. At least theoretically.

Since we have to discount ties in our registrations (besides big road and bead plate) we know that results' distribution may be affected in some way.

In a word, shoes particularly rich of ties at the start should be avoided (along with the shoes not fitting other conditions we're looking for).


AsymBacGuy / Re: Baccarat unbeatable plan #1
« on: April 22, 2019, 10:36:45 pm »
What should make "unbeatable" a given plan?

My answer: the certainty that a class of events must show up per any shoe at different degrees of presentation.
I'm not talking about a very very high probability that something is going to happen but the certainty that something happens.

Of course just knowing that something is 100% going to show up doesn't help us too much as we need to estimate when and how many times those events come out per any shoe.
In a word, we must build a proportion between searched events and number of attempts.
If we know that some shoes will provide just one searched event, we must restrict at most our attempts to spot this event as we're risking many to win one.
Conversely, knowing that some shoes will present many searched events, money utilized to spot those situations will be spent with a way higher probability to be right AT LEAST IN ONE SPOT. That is the minimum requirement of certainty we should look for. 

That is I do not want to win several bets within limited intervals of time with high degree of uncertainty but to win very little in safe conditions of certainty within relatively large amount of samples.

If such certainty would be ALWAYS limited in the space of 5-6 attempts per shoe, a simple martingale would solve the problem.
Unfortunately not every shoe will provide the room to make 5-6 attempts, in other words certainty becomes certainty only in selected circumstances.
And not by magical forces, just for a matter of space as any shoe is a finite separated dependent world.

See tomorrow




Baccarat Forum / Re: Baccarat Flat Betting
« on: April 21, 2019, 10:42:44 pm »
The control of variance is impossible

It depends on what you consider as controllable.
Baccarat is a finite dependent asymmetrical card process, it's not a coin flip endless succession, thus not every A/B fight will produce the same correspondent sd values a CF game provides. And neither a static 50.68/49.32 A/B probability model will produce what really happens per every shoe of baccarat. 
The deeper you analyze different A/B situations (random walks) the better the variance will be restrained, that is the pendulum swinging range.
I could decide to let it go some shoes not adhering to my statistical conclusions right at the start as no single, no streak, no pattern is equal to another one. It appears to be equal but it isn't.

Btw, thanks for your kind words.



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. 




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)




Interesting thoughts.



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


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?


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.


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.


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.








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.















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.


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.


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.






Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 53 Next