The importance of remaining neutral.

It takes making decisions in the game of baccarat in order to wager.  Making decisions entails many things and so many players never really understand their own process they employ.  One of the most positive, supporting and clarifying things you can engage in for decision making in Baccarat, is neutralism.  And here is why.

First of all this is a very serious subject and one that I think everyone can benefit from, if you understand how and why you make your decisions.

The action is super influential at the table.  People winning, people losing, events happening while repeating and no one is on them, to continue, to stop, etc. And there you are, thinking you were the average and just trying to fit in while keeping to your own agenda.

The other day I was playing and there were all 1's and 2's. It went on for almost half the board approximately 35 to 40 hands. I sit down and as soon as I sat down there was five in a row Bankers with one fortune seven. Everybody else was wagering on the players side except for myself. Just one example.  After that, it went back to ones and twos, but eventually both sides got much stronger and everyone remained winning one or two, while losing several in a row because they were hell bent on the thought of the continuation of ones and twos. 

The other day I sit down and finish the shoe and with the brand new one that first started there was about 10 to 12 pure chop chops and I couldn't get it in my head to keep parlaying and moving my bet back and forth with the pure chop, especially in the beginning of the shoe. Coupled with the majority of the hands losing and wining by one point or one natural wining over the other opposite side having a natural as well. 

Approaching limits. To be limited and something else begins. Because there is certainly deviation in most all shoes and the majority of the times it is multiple deviations, not one or two or even three times.  So misunderstood with the exact ring of failing to believe in and practice, neutralism.

People in my opinion, confuse following and going against the shoe in a huge way. Reread that and understand that sentence.

To me, with the correct mindset, they are both the same way because I am ultimately following only presentments. I am not following a trend or a pattern until after it already happens and if I play that way the highest majority of the times I will not recover what I have already lost in the attempt.

Here is another one from the other day:

BPBPBPBP (then) BBBPPPPBBB (then) PBPBPPP

4 things or 2 things?  Think.  Hands 1-8 chop chop one thing.  Hands 9-17 repeating another thing.  Hands 18-21 another thing, chop again.  Hands 21-23 another thing, starting repeats again.  Or is it two things with hands 1-8 as well as hands 18-21 one thing, all chop chop?  And hands 9-17 as well as hands 21-23 and some after also one thing, repeating hands? 

Learn how and why what you believe the shoe should produce, because in my opinion too many feelings and desires influence most all wagering.

There is a message the scoreboard sends out. This is what has happened. Are you smart enough to wager on what will happen? And to most, that would be the opposite. In someways it is, but in so many ways it is not.

At the table almost always, others will be focused on issues and possibilities opposite what you believe and desire to occur. Something to be totally conscious of, is hitting one or two wagers and allowing that to influence your trend of thought. Remain neutral!  Your most prized possession for so many reasons you never even thought possible.

Neutralism

After much thought, strong reading, thinking, playing, looking back with total open mind, I have finally realized the ultra importance of true neutralism.

Get rid of all the preached bull stuff, ask and ask yourself honestly if you have viewed the occurring event(s) differently, meaning from an absolute neutral position, would it have been much more profitable to you?

Interactions between the results and yourself should be neutral in regards to visual and physical exhibits and feelings.  But usually at the baccarat table it is far from that.

A hand is a trait, consisting of a winning side and the losing side. The physical and behavioral characters so repeatedly affected by the hand must be unaffected. 

Neutrality is the independence for your knowledge and experience, shy of any fallacy and desire, to make judgments and/or facilitate decisions independent of any bias (Fallacy-desire-supposed to be's) which you go along with, emphasizing on the process rather than the outcome.

It is rare but somewhat possible. But implies tolerance regardless of how disagreeable, unusual a perspective might be or not be. So, in neutrality decision making you will be expected to make judgments that are independent of any bias whatsoever, emphasizing on the process rather than the outcome. Why? Because the outcome is forming, But first the presentments and continued presentments must be made. 

So in my opinion and extensive experience, it does best to get away from favoritism from sides and distinct tendency to act upon that favoritism. Why? Because favoritism will promote ignorance, huge bias, double thinking and the simple disability to follow presentments from the shoe no matter the order they are coming out. 

Ignorance, bias and double thinking will, the highest majority of times, not allow you to exhibit neutrality and when you do, most likely you will feel bias and choose not to act on it. A neutral person can be very well-informed and act upon his views with clear thoughts and positive financial thought without being bias into ignorance, decision bias and double thinking. It's that simple.

Therefore the difference of a person with and without neutrality is, that a neutral person can use information, sight and knowledge without being ignorant, not being biased causing double thinking and sway with a quality to his own unbiased thought process. 

NOTE:  Doublethinking.  Accepting both sides as correct. Equality. Viewing both sides equal.  No matter what, no deviation. 

Neutrality requires tolerance. No matter how disagreeable and/or unusual a bias might be presented.  Do not confuse this with a 15 or 18 hand streak of something.  I'm talking about before you get to that point in order to be able to recognize a presentment with its following event, that it just might turn into. 

You must remember, ingrain within yourself, it is the process rather than the outcome. Outcomes must be set aside while the presentments are occurring. They will get you nearly 90% plus of the times.

HIGHLIGHTED NOTE:  Notes, clipboards, stats, pen and paper, etc. etc., that is why it is permissible with notetaking at the Baccarat table!  BE CAREFUL OF THINKING.......'SHOOT, I CAN FIGURE THIS ALL OUT AND SET MY TRIGGERS JUST LIKE THOSE YOUTUBE VIDEOS SHOW', etc.

Neutrality is classically expected to make judgments independent of biases, counting on the process rather than the outcome. But baccarat confuses that. Simply because players confuse themselves. Some will tell you to wager with no bias, others will tell you to wager with bias on the 'deficient' or against the 'too many' for example. Both can be correct and both can be wrong. Often, the difference is incommensurable with no real factual way for pure measurement.  Think about it.

Incommensurable.  NOT ABLE TO BE JUDGED by the same standard as something. Having no common standard of measurement.  Plain English = What happens as a result of something one time, fails to do the same thing another time or several times in a row thereafter or sporadically, but might happen consecutively for a bit. 

Basically in the game Baccarat, commensurability is a concept of science (gambling) whereby theories would be commensurable and we could lay out and discuss those theories to determine almost 100% of the time which one is more valid and useful to be in the winning favor.  The one that won, right alongside the won that lost. 

However, in reality-factual 100% reality, theories in baccarat are incommensurable because all of the reasonings, counts, cards burned through, cards not burned through, events occurred and events not yet occurred, etc. etc., do not sufficiently overlap with any type of complete justification with conceptual framework. Another paragraph read it and understand it!

That is why the gossip and belief happens from empirical evidence favoring one theory over another and inventing the wagers that become muddled, confusing and the winning hands will go on by the way of unforeseen contexts and consequences.

Empirical evidence might be fine in epistemology and law, but in baccarat it should not be allowed at the table!  And it continuously happens over and over and over. 

And if you desire to understand epistemology go Wikipedia it.  Learn the sub fields that make up the theory of knowledge, such as philosophy, ethics, logic and metaphysics. Then, take your knowledge, belief, truth, justification and attempt to package them into a reliable process which will turn acquisitions into true belief which can in turn become a reliable positive process working in your favor while actually wagering on only assumption.

To myself, the value problem is vitally important to assessing the advocacy of theories of baccarat knowledge that are played, preached and talked about.

I go by the following. According to Jonathan Kvanig, an adequate account of knowledge should resist counter examples and allow an explanation of the value of knowledge over mere true belief. Should a theory of knowledge fail to do so, it would prove inadequate.

Knowledge is valuable, but usually used wrong at the baccarat table because knowledge at the Baccarat table is usually absent of all sorts, if not completely of neutralism. Instead, focus on understanding without perception and reason, while hovering afloat between the knower and the mental state of believing.

Think!  Seriously Think!

Interesting read.

"...Neutralism

After much thought, strong reading, thinking, playing, looking back with total open mind, I have finally realized the ultra importance of true neutralism...."

Great theory though easier said than done.
IMO its very difficult for one to achieve perfect 100% neutralism at the Bac table. In part because it is in itself a subjective term (meaning can't be quantified with 100% certainty), by a consensus or majority.

Also, because I perceive many Bac players initially learned from different sources early in their careers and these sources influenced ones first playing style: (Books, Super systems, Buddies, YouTube, Listening to other experts at the table, Big win, Media, Gambling forums,...etc).
So each player at the table is viewing (interpreting) the results from a different viewpoint.

Some of these aforementioned sources were likely helpful though some likely continue to contaminate one's decision-making skillset at the table. I would guess very few of these early sources focused on neutralism.

I do think we can all improve our decisions and "neutrality mindset" at the table and attempting to approach 100% neutralism is a worthwhile goal, though extremely difficult.




More later,

"Some of these aforementioned sources were likely helpful though some likely continue to contaminate one's decision-making skillset at the table. I would guess very few of these early sources focused on neutralism." 

You are exactly spot-on!  Some helpful, but so many do allow their own sources to contaminate themselves because they remember when they won from something, etc.  And that is exactly the point I attempted to make. 


"I do think we can all improve our decisions and "neutrality mindset" at the table and attempting to approach 100% neutralism is a worthwhile goal, though extremely difficult." 

Yes, it is difficult, I do not debate that.  I have a hard time with it as well.  I wish I could be more
consistent and pure within my mindset regarding it.

But I know within my heart, after much thought and revisits to the many aspects within the thread, the pathways are more positive than saying, "heck follow such and such because look at the last 'XYZ' number of winning hands and how they won/what pattern came about, etc. 

Nice thread, indeed.

as.