D'Alembert Success

Quote: rob45

Very true.
Minimizing the amount we lose while playing under negative conditions is very important.

The contention is not about minimizing loss, but whether the claims of being a "winner" can be proven.

I "prove" myself each and every week in the casino, where there is actually something of real value to obtain.

There is nothing , absolutely nothing, to prove in this forum. The fact of the matter is, I could only lose in that exchange, and gain nothing of true value.

Quote: EvenBob

53%-54% is still no guarantee to stay around
even. You can easily stray to 8-10 wrong in
a row with a slim margin like that.

I started at 52 - 53 percent. I got it to 53 - 54. And rising.

That's right. Rising.

This past Thurs nite and yesterday's sessions, in total, saw me winning 28 of 48 bets. (I won 28 and lost 20.) 58%.

And it's now been three consecutive weeks like that. That's how I've gone up about a point, point and a half, in my strike rates over the past few weeks.

Lastly, I must tell you that no, you cannot "easily stray to 8-10 wrong in a row"....not with these strike rates.

My avg loss streak is a bit over 2 (that's loss streak...not to be confused with drawdown). It was about 3, up until this recent surge. In fact, I've been flat-betting most of my sessions, never even needing any recoup levels in my progression.

So "8-10 in a row" loss streaks?...Highly Improbable, to say the least.

I've had only a -10 as my highest drawdown, that my "gr8players progression" handled rather easily, representing my worst session in quite some time. If, in fact, I had a bet selection process that suffered any 10 in-a-row losing streaks, I'd trash it.

Quote: gr8player

Hello, CrapsGenious.

I realize your comment was made, most likely, in a sarcastic tone, but, just for clarification:

If I am seeking "entertainment", I'll take in a movie. I take my gambling, with my money, very seriously.

I'm sure that the casino takes your money in a very serious way, too.

Quote: gr8player

This past Thurs nite and yesterday's sessions, in total, saw me winning 28 of 48 bets. (I won 28 and lost 20.) 58%.

lol!!!

Get back to us when you have a few tens of thousands of bets to report. No one cares how lucky you got over a string of 48 bets. And be sure to count your "drawdown" in there... no selective reporting please.

Hello, AxiomOfChoice. I trust all is well with you.

I was simply reporting the statistics from this week's trip. That's all.

I do not "selective report"....I tell it exactly how it transpired.

Quote: gr8player

Hello, AxiomOfChoice. I trust all is well with you.

I was simply reporting the statistics from this week's trip. That's all.

I do not "selective report"....I tell it exactly how it transpired.

I think that the problem is that we are using different words to mean the same thing.

When I hear "53% strike rate" I assume that this is based on a large amount of data.

Can I ask how you determined your strike rate to be 53%? I assume that (1) you kept track of your bets won and lost (memory is too fallible to be trusted here -- you need written records or it's too easy to make mistakes), and (2) you divided your number of bets won by your total number of non-tied bets. So, my question is... what is that total number of non-tied bets you used in your calculation?

The reason that I ask is that a 53% strike rate over, say, 200 or 300 bets, would not be a big deal. A significant percentage of people who guess randomly would achieve this through normal variance (ie, being lucky -- not even that lucky). Similarly, 28/48 is not particularly impressive. Anyone who plays for a few days or weeks is extremely likely to eventually hit a run like this. The percentage is good, but the sample size is not big enough to be meaningful. It's like saying that you made one bet and won it. 1/1 is 100%, but almost half the people who play will be 1/1 at some point in their playing career!

But... a 53% strike rate over, say, 20,000 or 30,000 bets... now that is different. Of course, this is a large number of bets, but it's not unreasonable to make this many bets over the course of several months (if you bet many hands) or a few years (if you bet only a few hands)

Oh, no, AxiomOfChoice, my strike rates are from my results totaling but a fraction of that "20,000 or 30,000 bets". I'm not quite sure off-hand, but I'd say those strike rates are based upon my results from about 3,000 plays (read: actual bets).

Please understand that I make but 12 to 18 bets per shoe. So about an avg of 15 per shoe. 200 shoes = 3,000 plays, roughly.

You're correct in your thinking that it all may come tumbling down upon me.

But, I must say, my Baccarat sense tells me it will not. I have reasons for this, as this is not my first rodeo. I've been 'round the "bet selection block", and, unwaveringly, I feel very good about my bet selection process, and will continue as planned.

That said, if you're right, AxiomOfChoice, and the results fall dramatically, I will have no qualms with reporting right here in this forum.

(Sidenote: Just know that it will take a while for anything to "dramatically" change. You see, I have limited casino access, playing only Thurs nites and Fri afternoons. And, at that, only a handful of shoes for an entire trip. So, it'll be a while for any dramatic changes to my current results, but, again, I will gladly keep you posted here in this forum.)