Did rather well.  Stayed longer than anticipated, but friend was hell-bent to profit at least $10k and he was hovering around $6-7k.  Finally he did it and we colored up and left Chicago. 

I must say they do not nickel and dime their players, at least those playing black and purple at the bac table for comps.  The offer nice meals and snacks without even having play history once they see what you are wagering, etc.  I'm talking about $50.00-$100.00 comps. 

More later.

Two shoes advise played.

First was extremely choppy in the beginning.  Mostly 2 card draws both sides.  Very close together, like Players 6 and Bankers 7, Or one side a Natural 8 and the other a Natural 9.  8-9 hands. 

Then a Players IAR streak of 9, followed by 2 and 3 IAR Bankers with mostly a single Players hand, maybe one double Players out of at least 12 additional after the 9 IAR appearing. 

1s and 3s the final 20% or so of the shoe. 

Will add additional tomorrow. 

We are staying off property and enjoying some great food places. 

The basic principle is that more hands we try to guess higher will be the probability to lose.

We want to get the lesser impact of symmetrical hands so enhancing the role of the asymmetrical counterpart.
Whenever at the shoe played symmetrical hands tend to be more clustered than average (more than two times in a row by different back-to-back qualities), we could think to stop our betting for that shoe waiting for a new one.

After all symmetrical patterns tend to deny a sure asymmetrical card distribution, in fact a large part of consecutive symmetrical patterns come out from unsound math results, so itlr it's easier to go broke by chasing S patterns than A patterns.

Moreover and differently to any other strategical method, S patterns and A patterns tend to be very well balanced, a thing that could lure us to adopt a (multilayered) progressive plan.

In order to get a sure and safe edge different approaches are to be taken, always by registering fictional losses before betting. Some of them were already discussed here.

1- Bet A one time after A

If you wait that A came out isolated two times in a row (no A clusters happening) then betting toward A-A one time, you'll humiliate the house. If such attempt is lost, wait for another opportunity. 
The edge is so great but so (relatively) rare to happen that you'll risk to get asleep at the tables before crossing it.


2- Bet A-A-A after A-A

Such trigger is so powerful that you need just one isolated AA pattern to happen before betting.
Be careful of RNG productions where it's more prudent to either bet for any AAA cluster no matter what or to wait that two A-A came out before wagering.


3- Bet A after a single S

No need to wait any fictional loss, betting A after a single S will always produce a long term edge, especially at the random walk we've devised (but it costs 8 million of bucks to know it  , so with some work you'll find it for free). Caution must be taken at RNG productions (see point #4)


4- Bet A after a S-S double

Such attack works at unrandom productions and at this point you know what I'm referring to.

5- Isolated A linked with clustered S

This point should be splitted into four categories:

a) A-S-S-A-S-S-A

b) A-S-S-S...-A-S-S-A

c) A-S-S-A-S-S-S...

d) A-S-S-S...A-S-S-S...

Such scenarios are quite rare to happen, obviously just one of them (d) will deny any W situation within a 6-betting range.
Nonetheless we've seen that when in doubt about the real nature of the production we could start to "limit" S events after they had come out twice in a row and even A isolated events could need a low deviation to happen before thinking to get them clustered.
Then and generally speaking, clustered S events tend to make more room to A clusters (so obviously denying subsequent S patterns to be isolated).

Finally "long" isolated A sequences (actually we are interested about lenghts of two not going to three or more) are way more probable to come out intertwined by S isolated events than S clustered events.

See you next week

as. 

  Tried to take a pic of the score board but the floor people had an atomic fit about it.

Played half a shoe (second half), mostly chop chop and some doubles.  Did pretty good.  We are going to play another shoe in bit from the beginning. 

First half of the shoe had a run of 11 for the Players and a run of 6 Bankers followed by a single Player and then 7 additional Bankers. 

Hi KFB! Thanks!

Among the side bets I think the only unbeatable one is the tie, so I admire the gentleman. It would be great if you can grasp some hints about his tie strategy.
For some reasons I'm pretty certain that he plays only at RNG shoes (new generation of shuffle machines), am I right?

About the first win I've read your posts and I agree on that.

It's obvious that we can't know precisely when we'll get that first win, yet the average distribution of the previous shoes (and the texture of the actual shoe) will help us to define the deviations of such attempt.

Here's a brief list of real shoes about the very first situation of each shoe eliciting a W attempt:

L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
W

Total L=18 W=15.
Of course of those 18 L situations many will win at the second attempt of the same pattern.


Now the first W attempt made on the second pattern of each shoe:

W
W
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
 
L=15 W=18

That's an exact specular situation seen above for the first pattern.

Naturally W/L results were taken with no precise reason, so the permutation issue could provide a 18 L streak or a 18 W streak for each first or second pattern, underlying the importance that it's not how long a L or W consecutive streak happen at each pattern but what happens next in terms of doublets
(W-W, W-L, L-W or L-L).

We see that in the example displayed, even though W were inferior than L, the probability to get W-W is increased and the same is about L-W and such process could be evaluated for every subsequent patterns we wish to register.

Shoes presenting long L first attempt situations happen but they are well balanced by the shoes presenting long W first attempt situations and when we consider outcomes in form of doublets (for example) we could have a better picture of what is going on.

More later

as.

Almost there with another bac friend.  Stopped to get gas and had a late breakfast. 

Ill have to re-read this post as well as find the link to the story. I think something is missing or maybe a anti-vegas entity paid for the  study/article.
It would be interesting to see how the questions /surveys were worded. However,  I do agree LV has dropped in popularity.

"...There are many parts to good solid MMM. Probably the most important Single aspect of one is the drawdown.  A drawdown is the amount of buy-in you will lose before you really start winning..."

     I agree about the importance of expected drawdown. However, many players do not know or understand normal Variance expected for their bet and skill level(Im talking even-chance wagers). I suspect many players wager too many bets per shoe/ don't realize its all about the NET. For example, if one wagers and Wins=21, Losses=16(NET +5). If one wagers and Wins=11, Losses=6 (NET =5), and on and on.


"...I have witnessed countless players in brick & mortar casinos, that maintain no Bankroll and their Buy-ins are what they consider their Bankroll.  If they lose the session, they have to wait until they have additional funds to gambling again.  Hence, their Buyin is their Bankroll.  And that my friends is completely wrong and extremely mind boggling when they gambling.  It creates pressure and emotional city to the max! .."

     I see this every day. It is my opinion many players are too hard on themselves and have too high expectations of their betting prowess(or lack of). Players badger themselves too much when they lose and or losing in a session. You can see/ sense the self-inflicted pressure when they miss a few bets in a row. Then the fatal chase begins. Then they pull more out of their pocket or go to the cage and get more,...etc. If one is truely risking their buyin then they should expect to bust it occasionally.

Its my opinion most do not have a sufficient bankroll for their buyin/wager size. Of course it also depends on how often one plays. Even if one is just a recreational player they can still expect to see large drawdowns (Variance) in ones bankroll.

For a quick example, lets say one works their job M-F, yet plays every other weekend (all day saturday/sunday) , twice a month, never skipping. Lets say one plays nearly nonstop on both days (4 shoes so 8-9hours) per day. that's 8 shoes per weekend and 16 shoes per month. 16 shoes per month x 12 months =192 Shoes per Year. One could still expect to see massive fluctuations in ones Bankroll (even with an advantage).


The number one calculation a player should do is to know A)If they have an advantage, and B) What is said advantage. All other MM including and most importantly (bankroll-buyin-bet size) should be designed to fit. Flat bet, Pospro, Negpro, pos-neg pro,..etc should also be a function of the above calculations.

     I see many players that claim to be veterans of the Bac table that do not record any data and do not know if they are Net+ or Net- lifetime. They do not know if they have an advantage.


"...If they lose the session, they have to wait until they have additional funds to gambling again...."

     If one has to refuel ones bankroll from outside funds such as paycheck, other investments,...etc than A)They don't have an advantage, or B) They may indeed have an advantage but a weak MM plan, or C) They may have started out with a significantly too small of  bankroll. They did not calculate the Variance one may incur(even with an advantage).

*I see players that have an advantage but they dilute it by hedging their wagers and or they lack self control and discipline.


 More later,

Hi AsymBacGuy--Excellent thread.

3) Tie rich shoes should be treated with a lot of caution. The same about shoes resolving hands by utilizing 6 cards.

     I concur 100%. I play with a gentleman that mostly wagers for Tie(He does very well). He has studied Ties for years and only player I've met that primarily makes his money from Tie bets. Its interesting when we set next to each other as Im not a Tie bettor or Tie researcher. However, I do understand what Ties represent. There are many opportunities triggered by Tie Potential/Probability, as well as a shoe with T deficits or surplus. Especially the behavior of (7s outcomes) and their respective Potential/Probabilities.


9) To get a strong advantage we need to win more hands at the first betting attempt than at the second one. So meaning that what we're really looking for is a "first bet" winning cluster.
Therefore consecutive wins at the second betting attempts should be considered as a kind of "backup" plan.

     Well stated/ especially the part about winning the first attempt. This gets into some  topics I've mentioned in previous posts about being patient and waiting for Good, Better, BEST, scenarios. In other words trying to get the W on our first guess. Unrelated to this topic but I also strive to start my shoe with a WIN at the beginning. Again, waiting for the "BEST" spot to place that first wager.



Continued Success,

Just an example about first W attempt chasing the asymmetry. (37505, MGM Grand)

L, L, W, L, L, W, W, W, L, L, L, L, L, W, L, L, W

L=11, W=6.

A constant wagering toward W would be unprofitable, to say the least.

To simplify the issue we ignore vig.

Betting toward W clusters would result into a -1 loss.

Betting W after one L would result into a -4 units loss.

Betting W after L-L would result into a +2 profit.

Betting W after L-L-L would result into a -1 loss.

Now let's consider the second W attempt at the same shoe:

L, L, W, L, W, W, L, L, W

L=5, W=4

Betting toward W clusters would result into a break even situation

Betting W after one L would result into a -1 loss

Betting W after L-L would result into a +2 profit

No L-L-L situations happened at second W attempts.

as.