Helping to Define Presentments, Models & Bet Selection Wagering, PART 1

How do you do what is correct today, like right now at the table? Talking about it and having others review it, a few will always find something wrong with what you said.  And those types will go to great lengths in the attempt to prove their findings.  Then they post, demean, humiliate and have a tiny consensus of their peers that join them.  But the bottom line is, that they are living in a fallacy world of portraying that they play the necessary hours and amounts of shoes to equal the 51% Plus outcome and thus, they win each and every time.  Complete and utter nonsense to the max!   

Always a group of presentments will come around but subsequently, believing such is the way to win at baccarat, you are only preparing the depth of the hole to bury yourself.  That group of wins that has a percentage of somewhere from 51 to 60% or even greater, on all the testing and results of mathematical models, will eventually come around.  But the waiting time for any such event will eat up far more profits than you will make.  But hey, certainly makes great worthless and senseless ammunition in the forum gambling board war of the full-time posters.

The times that those events do not come around, as well as the times your event just immediately fizzles out early, will eat those wagers up.  Problem is, you are narrowing your vision, your consciousness and losing out of numerous chances and the ability to capitalize on presentments that everyone just responds with that all too familiar 'WOW' over.  To me, that is the only way to explain the solid, powerful, consistent and repetitive patterns/trends/events being produced form the shoe with virtually very few if any people wagering with the shoe.  They are nearly all hooked on the cut to the opposite last win or wagering on that event they found will register 51% Plus on thousands or tens of thousands of shoes. 

Be it:  XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXO  or maybe; XXOOXXOOXXOOXXOOXXOO or maybe; XXXXXXXXXOXXXXXXX or maybe; XOOOXXOOXXXO or that every Natural win cuts to the opposite side or that every third card draw adds up to an 8 or a 9 total to one side only and reduces the other for like 7 or 8 or 10 consecutive hands.  And many many more, too numerous to list.

Sure, you can engage and believe the gambling forum full time posters with their long drawn out dialog of samples that are proven by computer testing will put you on easy money street.  But in reality, taking those same groups of events to the baccarat table, will prove a loss to yourself.  Because you will do just as I said in the above info.  You will have loss far more than you will ever win.  Of course, every author I have read posts and posts their theories claiming they grind it out and make a solid living from it, but without any proof except computer generated score cards, their altered test results and their complex definitions of how and why it all happened.  And those that say they win far more than they loss will never post a picture, never post a win-loss statement, never post their contact info, never get on the phone with another and numerous other traits of the same lines.  They are internet drama queens and bored out of their minds.  Fueled only by fallacy turned around and having a few in their small worthless group of followers.

There are ways to win at baccarat and it all has to do with mostly non-mechanical and non-mathematical knowledge.

Alrelax/Glen.

Helping to Define Presentments, Models & BetSelection Wagering, PART 2

Here, this might explain it to the baccarat players that have actually been around long enough to lose, to win and to have been sucked in by the countless distractions and influences that exist at the live baccarat tables in brick and mortar casinos. 

It is certainly possible to be absolutely certain ... and absolutely wrong?   Correct operations upon mistaken premises do not generate useful results. 1+1=2 only if we agree on definitions of those symbols and their interpretation which make that a true statement; if we do, then it is true by definition within that system.  And hence, the systems, explanations, and computer-generated baccarat test models that are endorsed or explained to win a greater amount of times than they will lose.  Usually by those claiming to bring large bankrolls to hold your ground, play long enough without stopping or another fallacy somewhere along those couple of examples. 

We know that math is self-consistent, and we know it produces results which make useful predictions about the real world, and we find ways to refine it when if falls short, such as complex numbers...such as multiple columns and elaborate ways of waiting for a wager if this or that happens, or claiming to stick to a mechanical scheduled wager following events that are yet to unfold, etc., etc.   And that my friends as much truth as science ever offers because those posters are taking something that is basically true as a premise and converting it, molding it and shaping it to coincide with their wagering beliefs, hopes, desires or whatever one wants to label it.

Another term for what they are offering to match their extreme (LOL) knowledge and decades of baccarat play that they mold along with their highly educated backgrounds (again, LOL) is a simple two words, Deductive Reasoning. 

Deductive Reasoning implies that if all of the premises are true and if the influences are valid, it will follow.  SIMPLE!  Hence, the conclusion must be true.  The conclusion can be anything the author/poster wants it to be.  The group of 3 after the XYZ event presents itself in the third column of seven total columns, etc., etc.  Or something along the lines as, every 3rd or 4th or 5th B or P will cut to the opposite side more times than it does not. 

All proofs and arguments are finite. If they were not, the conclusion could never have been reached.  Think about it.  Everyone relies on premises and those premises, forming the basis for the argument are unproven.  They are only proven in the mind and vision of the person testing, explaining and claiming fame to the way that sustains themselves in guaranteed wins or at least grinding out a solid winning amount most every time if not every time they sit down and play. 

You could create a proof of those premises, but that new proof would in turn itself rely on unproven premises, no?  Yes, it would!  The problem is inescapable.  But of course, the master of baccarat or any table game for that matter, be it systems salespeople/authors, those people desiring to control and rule the gambling forums, or those offering their tutorial and educational services.  Ultimate, all deductive reasoning depends on premises that are not deductively proven. 

The arguments often also rely on auxiliary premises that are not explicitly present. They are simply background assumptions, fallacies or events made up by those in retaliatory mode against anyone that claims their info/date is flawed or might not work. 

Those claiming the fame as I outlined above, will only outline the events or presentments when such continues.  But the whole flip-flop and downside is, the black hole of never knowing when those presentments and events will surface and how long they will stay. 

Models are nice because they are finite.  Simple.  A model is tangible in so many words.  And yes, that model might have worked, but still, there is no way to define how large and how long anyone needs to sustain himself at a gaming table until that model kicks in and hopefully performs in the same length, shape and longevity as it did on the model that was discovered by its author, etc.  And more times than not, if not all, there will be periods of thousands and thousands of hands presented until those models do present themselves for an unknown and in no way guaranteed length of stay, let alone arrival.