Thread Rating:

Mosca
Mosca
Joined: Dec 14, 2009
  • Threads: 178
  • Posts: 3789
July 11th, 2013 at 7:28:16 PM permalink
Quote: Ibeatyouraces

If you say so.



Two examples, there are more:

Quote: gr8player

Hello all. I just happened upon this open forum, and decided to join it, as I'm familiar with Wiz's other site and always found it both repectful and enlightening. And, in my brief perusal here, this appears similar.

By way of introduction, I'm a confirmed Baccarat "trender", and I've previously posted, rather extensively, at both the Glen and Baccarat Forum site...

Sidenote: Yes, I am fully aware of the Wiz's stance on "trending", and it's viability (or, should I say, lack thereof) as it pertains to games of chance. I trust, however, that he wouldn't object to anyone discussing their personal beliefs and/or experiences regarding same.

I look forward to some open discussions.



(Emphasis added)




Quote: gr8player

But that's not quite what I have in mind whenever I'm in "no-bet" mode. It's not all about the house edge for me. I much prefer to concentrate on my edges, defined thusly:

I can bet where and when I choose to.
I can bet how much (or less) as I choose to.
I can terminate a shoe and/or session as I choose to.

I use those edges to the very best of my ability to, at the very least, put myself in the very best position to succeed over the long term.

Why? Because they're all I've got. I've no crystal ball, and thusly have no concrete evidence of the next decision about to be played out.

But I'm fine with that. I have pre-set "exit strategies" for each contingency; win, lose, or draw.

In other words, I fully recognize what I can control, and what I cannot. And what I can control, I control to my very best advantage. Absolutely imperative, and absolutely inexcusable if it's not an integral part of your own play.

NO KILL I
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
July 11th, 2013 at 8:12:47 PM permalink
Actually:
Quote: gr8player

I prefer to bet when I wish to based upon certain criteria.
I prefer to bet where I wish to based upon certain criteria.
I prefer to alter my bet size as I wish to based upon certain criteria.
I prefer to terminate a session as I wish to based upon certain criteria.

You see, my friend, unlike that monolithic, decision-spewing table, I AM ALLOWED TO THINK. I AM ALLOWED TO REACT, AND COUNTERACT.

And my THINKING, REACTING, and COUNTERACTING trumps their house edge.

"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
tringlomane
tringlomane
Joined: Aug 25, 2012
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 6182
July 11th, 2013 at 8:52:02 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

Actually, it's these people keeping the casinos in business:

*Pocono Downs Slot Pic with an Aristocrat slot bank fully occupied*



Amen!

The two casinos nearest to me:

May 2013 revenue:

Slots/Video Poker:
Ameristar St. Charles: $19,367,016.42
Hollywood St. Louis: $17,632,963.20
Total: $36,999,979.62

Tables:
Ameristar St. Charles: $2,157,034.40
Hollywood St. Louis: $2,915,950.78
Total Tables: $5,072,985.18

Total revenue for these two casinos:
$42,072,964.80

Slot revenue: 87.94%
Table game revenue: 12.06%
Beethoven9th
Beethoven9th
Joined: Jul 30, 2012
  • Threads: 75
  • Posts: 5072
July 11th, 2013 at 9:10:12 PM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

He said yesterday he had an edge, so he's beating the
house. In his mind, anyway.


Yeah, gr8player compared himself to the US hockey team vs. the Soviet Union in the Miracle on Ice. LOL!
Fighting BS one post at a time!
jhousetc
jhousetc
Joined: Jul 8, 2013
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 8
July 12th, 2013 at 2:06:25 AM permalink
Quote: gr8player

If I were to design a bet selection process, I would not want my nemesis to be the singles, or ones. Why? Because the statistical leader for appearances in the average Bac shoe is, in fact, ones (or singles). Would it make sense to have your nemesis be the most common occurrence, statistically? I should think not.



Hi gr8player,
This is some what accurate.
Yes, there are more singles then 2's, more 2's then 3's and so on.......
But if you just look at singles and mutiples (more then ones). They are statistically equal (50%).
So design your nemesis not on singles has any advantage?


“Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.”
Eleanor Roosevelt
gr8player
gr8player
Joined: Mar 2, 2013
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 606
July 13th, 2013 at 7:40:30 AM permalink
Quote: egalite

P BB P B P "bet B next" In this public forum?

You would do well not to disseminate this sort of information anywhere.

More to do with factor relating to embarrassment than sharing secrets which will bring casinos to their knees.



Embarrassment????? I've nothing to be embarrassed of, my friend........and, least of all, my Baccarat play.

Frankly, I believe that you're the one that should be embarrassed. All those years of Baccarat play under your belt and you still don't "get it", and it appears that you never will.

Look again at that posted example of mine.

Now, look past the result......Do you think I care about it being a Player (loss) as opposed to a Banker (win)????

There's where you're missing the boat.....you're much too invested in that single winning outcome. That's been your problem as long as I know you. But, don't feel too bad about it.....most players have that same handicap.....they can't get past the resulting decision well.

So I'm wrong, as the next hand is, in fact, a Player decision, and I lose the bet. So what???? I've lost a thousand bets over the years. So what???

That is not what defines my plays for me. Let me repeat that: THAT IS NOT WHAT DEFINES MY PLAYS FOR ME. Rather, my reaction to the outcome is what does define my play for me. And, consequently, MY LONG TERM SUCCESS. Quite a few of my preferred plays lost yet again this past Thursday night and yesterday afternoon, yet I drove home a $320. winner last night. (And that was $320. after comm and tips and an $18 Ashton Churchill...yeah, over-priced but that's what I get for leaving my cigars home.) Not alot of money over two sessions of Bac, it's only a few units, but a winner nonetheless. Imagine that....I lost some bets along the way, yet I still prevailed....imagine that.

Don't any of you understand how I approach this game????

Consistency. Patience. Discipline. Money Management. Knowing one's way around a Baccarat shoe, armed with the experience of knowing when it's "ripe" and when it's "sour".

I could post The Grail right here in this very forum, but it ain't never gonna happen, not on my watch. Not here. Not now. You guys just don't "get it", and probably never will.
Ibeatyouraces
Ibeatyouraces
Joined: Jan 12, 2010
  • Threads: 68
  • Posts: 11933
July 13th, 2013 at 7:46:44 AM permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
treetopbuddy
treetopbuddy
Joined: Jan 12, 2013
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 1739
July 13th, 2013 at 7:48:29 AM permalink
Quote: Ibeatyouraces

You don't have IT and we don't want IT! Your system WILL FAIL, GUARANTEED!!!



I want gr8player's system
Each day is better than the next
Buzzard
Buzzard
Joined: Oct 28, 2012
  • Threads: 90
  • Posts: 6814
July 13th, 2013 at 7:51:23 AM permalink
Me too............................PLEASE
Shed not for her the bitter tear Nor give the heart to vain regret Tis but the casket that lies here, The gem that filled it Sparkles yet
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
July 13th, 2013 at 8:20:40 AM permalink
Quote: gr8player

Consistency. Patience. Discipline. Money Management. Knowing one's way around a Baccarat shoe, armed with the experience of knowing when it's "ripe" and when it's "sour".


It has been demonstrated that a computer armed with perfect knowledge of the remainder of the shoe cannot achieve a meaningful or regular edge over the house[1][2]. From the second footnote:
Quote: recounting Thorp & Walden

[Dr. Edward O.] Thorp and a fellow academic, William Walden, investigated the possibility of applying card-counting techniques to baccarat, their work being recorded at the taxpayer's expense for the benefit of posterity in "A winning bet in Nevada baccarat" (Journal of the American statistical association, vol 73, 1966). The work was an outgrowth of Walden's PhD thesis which Thorp supervised.

Thorp and Walden, with the aid of a computer, determined the precise expectations for the various bets. They then analyzed random subsets of thirteen cards,a typical minimum number of cards remaining in a deck before a shuffle, to see if either player or banker bet was favourable (the tie-bet had not yet been introduced). In only two occasions out of 58 did Thorp and Walden discover any advantage. Once the player had an edge of 3.2%, once the banker had an edge of 0.1%. Clearly, they concluded, no system based on card-counting could yield a practical winning strategy, for the favourable situations were just too infrequent.


In short, your belief that you can tell when a shoe is "ripe" vs. "sour" based on past hand results is mistaken. Baccarat cannot be beaten by counting cards or -- in your case -- by tracking prior results. One must have knowledge of where in the shoe are the remaining cards in order to profit from the game, and such knowledge cannot be discerned merely by recording Ps and Bs on a scorecard and looking for patterns like P BB P B P.

There are ways to beat baccarat, but that's not one of them.

[1] http://wizardofodds.com/games/baccarat/appendix/2/
[2] http://greenbaizevamp.hubpages.com/hub/Edward-Thorps-baccarat-adventure
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563

  • Jump to: