Johnos baccarat stats

What do you guys make of this?


Disclaimer; Expectation is NOT a guarantee. Expectation does not remove that fact that each outcome is and will always remain a 50/50 bet.

Original Zumma 72 days at the tables; origin and authenticity is unknown; it is however used as a base line for testing by many.

600 shoes, 41,698 decisions.

Streak Length = Occurrences = Percentage

1's = 10297 = 24.6% of all results
2's = 1-296 = 24.6%
3's = 8232 = 19.7%
4's = 5148 = 12.3%
5's = 3220 = 7.7%
6's = 1932 = 4.6%
7's = 1127 = 2.7%
8's = 648 = 1.5%
9's = 360 = 2% there-after (approx)
10 = 200
11 = 110
12 = 60
13 = 39
14 = 14
15 = 15

What can be learnt from the above?

Will the chops continue or will the last hand double. Definite 50/50 bet that the chops will continue or the last hand will repeat. When you tack on the rest of the streak lengths, the expectation indicate, it is more likely to double.

If you are inclined to bet against a run, this includes wait for a pre-determined streak length and then bet against it's continuance. Then waiting for a streak of 3 seems preferable than waiting for a streak of 4. However it all depends how many bites you are going to take.

Assuming 1L then stop.

Betting against a run of two, the long term expectation of winning are 24.6%, the expectation of not winning is 32%.

Betting against a streak of three the expectation of winning is 19.7% and expectation of losing 20%.

Betting against a streak of 4 the figures are 12.3% expectation of success and 12.3% of failure.

Betting against a streak of 5, we finally see movement in our favour; 7.7% / 7.3%. Only marginally better for betting against a streak of 6, 4.6% / 4.2%

If you are going to bet against a run and you don’t subscribe to trending, don’t take a single stab at betting against any double, the expectation is for you to lose the bet. **Or another example of why sometimes following the trend can be viewed as flawed**, as in betting for the continuance of a repeating two-two pattern. The figures however change dramatically when we take two bites at betting against the streak (2L stop).

Wait for any double, the expectation of winning t bet 44.3%, the expectation of losing the bet 20% a difference of 20.3%. However because it requires two attempts, this rules out flat betting, refer above. You would need a 3-1 in your favour ratio to expect to be successful flat betting.

Wait for a streak of 3 and bet against it; 32% expectation, 12.3% expectation of failure, 19.7% positive expectation. Just to reiterate here, expectation is what you might expect long term and obviously based on the results found in the original Zumma book.

Bet against a streak of 4; 20% positive expectation, 7.3% negative expectation, for an overall 12.7% positive expectation. Wait for a streak of 5, 12.3% / 4.2% for an overall figure of 8.1%.

This is a fun exercise and can help you in your own system or trigger design. It doesn’t preclude any bet from being a 50/50 outcome. If you want to play “anti-streak” should you wait for 2 or 3 or 4 or more? Are there optimal bets to be found in Zumma?

You can draw your own conclusions, such as.

If you want to bet against the streak and flat bet, you would be better off waiting for a streak of 6 than a streak of 2.

Taking more than one bite at the cherry (making more than one betting attempt), there is only a marginal difference between waiting for any double and waiting for a streak of 3. Both are slightly better than waiting for a streak of 4. All are better than waiting for a streak of 5.

If you take 3 bites at the cherry it changes yet again, however will your third bet still produce a profit, which it really needs to do in order to capitalise on the expectation figures.

Wait for a streak of 2 and bet against it (3L stop), +55.6% positive expectation, -18.5% negative expectation, overall +37.1%

Wait for a streak of 3 and bet against it (3L stop), +39.7% / -10.8% overall + 28.9%.

Wait for a streak of 4 and bet against it (3L stop), +24.6% / -6.2% overall +18.4%

As you can see, the money-management becomes more difficult as you are now looking at a 3 pronged attack, and sometimes you will lose 3 bets. However the Zumma stats clearly indicate that 3 bet attempts after any streak of two is superior than betting against any streak of four, three times.


BUT WAIT, let’s have a bit more fun playing around with these expectation figures (likely versus unlikely is never a cast iron guarantee).

What if we have a couple of bites of betting against the run and should those attempts fail, let’s join the rest of the table no doubt and jump on the run.

Wait for a streak of 3, 2 bets against it’s continuance, should we lose, jump on the mother, and assuming it does actually run. Gives us a positive expectation of 42.8% and a negative expectation of 7.7% for an overall figure of +35.1%

Doing the same but waiting for a streak of 4, 26.2% / 4.6% for an overall figure of 21.6%, again it “appears” to be better to bet against streaks of 3 than streaks of 4. However expecting a streak to materialise just because you decided to jump on it, is probably a bit unrealistic.

So let’s do those figures once again, this time assuming a single win after we have had 2 losses betting against the run and now we jump on it. Incidentally in a perfect world we wouldn’t bet against any run rather ride them for all they are worth, unfortunately long streaks don’t advertise themselves, you could play many shoes waiting for that long streak, which still may never come.

AS4-2LJSW (Anti-streak 4, 2 losses, jump on the run for a single win) 22.7% positive expectation, 4.6% negative expectation, overall figure 18.1%

AS3-2LJSW 36.6% positive expectation, 7.7% negative expectation, overall figure 28.9%. Of course you have to factor in the end of streak losing bet when it comes, should you stay on the streak after you win your bet.

I’m sure you can produce your own stats for various bet scenarios using the Zumma info posted at the top of this thread, matched to your preferred progression. Don’t confuse expectation with anything more than what it is.

Corrections welcome.


Unfortunately you can't edit after you post, but I do need to make a correction. According to Zumma betting against streaks of 2, the expectation figures should read (not was is stated above).

Streaks of 2 then 2L stop (no jump);

Streak length-positive expectation - negative expectation - overall
2 - 44.3% / 30% - 14.3%
3 - 32% / 18% - 14%
4 - 20% / 10.8% - 9.8%
5 - 12.3% / 6.2% - 6.1%

Seems little in it between betting after a streak of 2 or after a streak of 3.

Is is possible to design a bet selection which provide a positive expectation? Of course it is, there are a few, but become problematic progression

It is a post I stumbled across from johnno.

It must be said he posted under different names here, Egalite' for one.

Quote: Bmayo319

Is is possible to design a bet selection which provide a positive expectation?

No.

Quote: Bmayo319

What do you guys make of this?

It is nonsense combined with flawed math.

The guy who wrote this crap clearly doesn't understand what the word "expectation" means.

I don't even know what he is using it to mean. He appears to be confusing it up with the word "probability", except that they don't add up to 1.

Quote: endermike

No.


It is nonsense combined with flawed math.

Yes it doesnt add up...
Interesting fellow though I must say

Time for the gr8 one to comment.......

If more people follows/believes johno's/egalite/RolexWatch and now Bmayo319, I am opening a casino! The best long winded articulation of absolute nonsense on the internet. Not to forget that the crap being spewed is also focused on playing backwards. LOL.

Interesting fellow indeed. The blind leading the blind.

Quote: DMSCR

Interesting fellow indeed. The blind leading the blind.

From what I understand you can play blind, so its ok.

Quote: DMSCR

If more people follows/believes johno's/egalite/RolexWatch and now Bmayo319, I am opening a casino! The best long winded articulation of absolute nonsense on the internet.

Hello, D-man, I trust all is well with you.

So, what have we here? Yet another alias?

It's rather funny, isn't it.....regardless the infinitesimal name changes, the man and the message remain equally clueless.

Come back, Johno/Egalite/RolexWatch/Bmayo319, when you've got a positive bet selection process. Then we can converse as comrades in arms.

Until then, my friend, you're nothing more than a shadow of a truly successful Baccarat player. Witness:

Thursday night session 9:50 P.M. buy-in

First shoe W8 L7 +1 flat-betting
Second shoe W6 L7 -1 ....mostly flat-betting, but did need to go "one-over" in "2-ville" (read: 2nd level of my prog) in order to resolve with a +2.
Third shoe W7 L6 +1 flat-betting

Session totals: W21 L20 for a 51% strike rate and a +4 units.

Friday afternoon session 12:50 P.M. buy-in

First shoe W8 L4 +4 flat-betting
Second shoe W8 L8 Even @ flat-betting
Third shoe W6 L8 -2....again, mostly flat-betting, but did need, again, to go "one-over" in "2-ville" in order to resolve, however this time I resolved only to "break even" rather than pick up 2 units.
Fourth shoe W8 L5 +3 flat-betting

Session totals: W30 L25 for a 55% strike rate and a +5 units.

Trip totals: 7 shoes played (or parts thereof), 96 bets, W51 L45 for a 53% strike rate and a +9 units. With the bulk of my play flat-betting.

That, Mssrs Johno/Egalite/RolexWatch/Bmayo319, is how it's done.

D-man, good catch, my friend. Stay vigilant, and stay well.

Maybe we should put egalite/RolexWatch/Bmayo319 in charge of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program. He would fit riiiiiight in!

I still can't get over from my Vegas trip at the Aria in the second week of February. Actually ran into a guy who I think does what egalite/RolexWatch do using some 3-Col labby whatever egalite calls it. That negative progression! Guy brings in about $8000 to the table with his casino credit. Plays every hand exactly how egalite does it. Loses about half. Then jumps up +$2,000 a few hands later. You think he would be smart enough to color out? Nope. Goes up to +$6,000 the next five hands later with a few hiccups a long the way. Impressive! Then up $12,000. I was like damn maybe I should follow the guy! Really feel sad and pathetic flat betting $150 with my +3 units already. LOL. Actually I should just color out given that it was a $100 table. During this time I stopped betting because there were no triggers for me and just wanted to see how this guy was doing since he was up so much. The next few hands I remember he was down about $6,000 in profits from his $12,000 high. So he still had a total of $14,000. By this time we were about 60% of the shoe done. Then it all came crashing down for him since he was trying to chase his profit loss of that $12,000. By the end of the shoe he had four black actions and a couple of reds left. So in the end he was down some $7,500. Not to forget his commissions were high too magnified his loss. It was around $400. For me I was just up +4 units with a buy-in of $1,500 so after commissions, $540.

Can't really point fingers at just Egalite since the whole baccarat community is populated by his ilk right now.

Quote: DMSCR

I still can't get over from my Vegas trip at the Aria in the second week of February.

D-man, my Vegas trip has come down to a decision between Bellagio, Palazzo, and the Aria. I value your opinion...any advice on those three?

Quote: DMSCR

For me I was just up +4 units with a buy-in of $1,500 so after commissions, $540.

No wonder we get along well, my friend; our Bac theory/methodology is undoubtedly similar. Nice job on your win. Nice job on your entire M.O.

Quote: DMSCR

Can't really point fingers at just Egalite since the whole baccarat community is populated by his ilk right now.

Correct. Come to AC or CT...you wouldn't believe your eyes when you witness some of the players there. It appears, on the surface, as "money is no object" for many of these players; if only they'd had a reasonable objective. A gentleman at my table hit for somewhere in the neighborhood of 10K on the "Dragon bonus" and the "Panda bonus" plays....but apparently that wasn't enough for him, so he stayed just long enough to lose the bulk of it back. They're absolutely nuts.

Bellagio

Plus:

1) You are in the middle of all the action.
2) Really nice rooms since they have just gone through a renovation.
3) Good baccarat action. Not many people play during the day and the limits can go as low as $25 if you go during the week/quiet time.
4) Easty access to Aria.

Minus:

1) Long lines during check in.
2) Very snobby especially if you play low limits
3) Most dealers hate being there and it shows.

Aria

Plus:

1) Awesome baccarat action.
2) Amazing rooms.
3) Friendly dealers.

Minus:

1) It is all the way far back of the City Center.
2) Too far off Strip.

Palazzo

Plus:

1) Near the Wynncore!
2) Good baccarat action if you like high limit.
3) Much quieter and less busy than Venetian.
4) Awesome rooms.

Minus:

1) You will get lost. I have been to Vegas numerous times and lived there for six months around 2012/2013 and I still get lost when I am there. LOL.
2) That damn flowery smell they keep pumping in there.

I can honestly say you can't go wrong with any one of the casinos you have chosen. Personally though I would take Aria because I personally did well there every time I visit their baccarat tables.

gr8,

I say 98% of my baccarat "method" is self taught. Yet many of those ideas are based on your concepts/philosophy like flat betting and regarding variance especially. For that I truly thank you. Honestly when I first dug into this I had no idea what on earth you were talking about. It was a slow and painful two year active process in finally understanding in what you have always been saying. I was actually paying attention to Egalite in the beginning since he was very prolific in his writing but after some mass testing and play testing with real time event processing, discovered that it works well on paper but doesn't work in real world conditions. Plus there were some things happening behind the scenes and communications with him that I realized Egalite is just another degenerate in trying to steal others' ideas to fill his many holes/voids/issues. So I left and from there he went 360 on me. Luckily I followed my instincts and didn't share anything with him.

Simply put I may not come out of a Vegas trip say with $30,000 in winnings from a $5,000 bankroll but I will never have to go through torturous buy-ins, long grinding +20 hour sessions in trying to crawl back from a soul crushing beat down, and I am NEVER broke. My plays are laughable because they are never exciting, very predictable and extremely uneventful. Yet by the end of the day/trip you realize how well you did after all the expenses and costs calculated. Joey Knish would be proud.

Thanks again, D-man....I'm leaning Palazzo.

You needn't thank me for anything; as you've stated above, 98% is self taught. Which is exactly how nature intended it.

Sure, we all have commonalities....flat betting/conservative MM and variance-play. They go hand-in-hand.

I'm truly happy to read of your success. I know it's well-deserved, because I know all too well of the hard work its taken any of us to get our Bac games where they need to be in order to overcome the daunted house edge.

I've got to laugh at your "my plays are laughable because they are never exciting" comment:

Yesterday I was, virtually, napping at the table. I hadn't had a "trigger" in a while, so I'm just waiting (read: "no-betting"). And I'm thinking to myself, this is boring as heck. I virtually know what I'm going to do at every single occurrence, be it a won bet or a lost bet, or any series thereof. There are no surprises left for me at the Baccarat table...I've an answer for everything.

A winning answer.

The hardest part...the ABSOLUTELY hardest part...was getting MYSELF out of the way of that success. You see, my friend, as you very well know by now, we are virtually assured of our long term success if only we don't screw it up. Keep your mind right and everything else will follow in line, as it should, just as planned.

That's a part of what you got from me, my friend...and yes, I, too, thank myself....every time I'm at the cashier's cage.

Stay well.

In Vegas compared to all the casinos I went to, I am nothing but a very very small fish. Come to think of it not even a fish. A darn tadpole! When you sit at a baccarat table in Vegas many come in typically with $20,000 or more. Then there are those who play on credit. Me? My bankroll come in with a fraction of that. My bets are even worse. They are all almost the same amount and the smallest compared to everyone playing at the table. Maybe I will throw in an extra $25/$50. The other folks? $500 here. $3000 there. $4000 with two $500 on each of the Pairs and $300 on the tie. Plus I am always the FIRST to color out and can't wait to run to the cashier. To tell you the truth, I HATE gambling and would do anything to make sure things does not end up that way. If baccarat ever becomes unprofitable, volatile and inconsistent I would leave in a heart beat.

Yup, that john-O is one shrewd cat, I must say, hey hey.

Quote: DMSCR

In Vegas compared to all the casinos I went to, I am nothing but a very very small fish. Come to think of it not even a fish. A darn tadpole! When you sit at a baccarat table in Vegas many come in typically with $20,000 or more. Then there are those who play on credit. Me? My bankroll come in with a fraction of that. My bets are even worse. They are all almost the same amount and the smallest compared to everyone playing at the table. Maybe I will throw in an extra $25/$50. The other folks? $500 here. $3000 there. $4000 with two $500 on each of the Pairs and $300 on the tie. Plus I am always the FIRST to color out and can't wait to run to the cashier. To tell you the truth, I HATE gambling and would do anything to make sure things does not end up that way. If baccarat ever becomes unprofitable, volatile and inconsistent I would leave in a heart beat.

Gee, you'd think that if it were profitable your bankroll would have grown by now.

Quote: Bmayo319

What do you guys make of this?


Disclaimer; Expectation is NOT a guarantee. Expectation does not remove that fact that each outcome is and will always remain a 50/50 bet.

Original Zumma 72 days at the tables; origin and authenticity is unknown; it is however used as a base line for testing by many.

600 shoes, 41,698 decisions.

Streak Length = Occurrences = Percentage

1's = 10297 = 24.6% of all results
2's = 1-296 = 24.6%
3's = 8232 = 19.7%
4's = 5148 = 12.3%
5's = 3220 = 7.7%
6's = 1932 = 4.6%
7's = 1127 = 2.7%
8's = 648 = 1.5%
9's = 360 = 2% there-after (approx)
10 = 200
11 = 110
12 = 60
13 = 39
14 = 14
15 = 15

What can be learnt from the above?

My Dad has the Zumma books and the data you posted about the Zumma 600 streaks is way off
not even close!

here is what I show having a computer program and Excel count them streaks
I did this for Z600 and Z1000
two tables to chew on
first is Z600
--------------------------- summary [600 shoes] ----------------------------
20182 P; 20825 B; 0 T; 41007 G;
Ties were not counted
added: Baccarat experts also know that the single length streaks are different. There are less Banker streaks of length 1 compared tp Player.
Those need to be considered into any bet selection method.

length	player	player prob	banker	banker prob	z600	total prob	length	Pwins	Bwins
1	5375	0.51499473	5249	0.502537099	10624.51499	0.508763827	1	5375	5249
2	2614	0.250455112	2596	0.248539971	5210.250455	0.24949722	2	5228	5192
3	1271	0.121778289	1297	0.124174246	2568.121778	0.122976669	3	3813	3891
4	614	0.058829165	669	0.064049785	1283.058829	0.06144035	4	2456	2676
5	295	0.028264827	310	0.029679272	605.0282648	0.028972287	5	1475	1550
6	146	0.013988694	156	0.014935376	302.0139887	0.014462194	6	876	936
7	73	0.006994347	86	0.008233605	159.0069943	0.007614184	7	511	602
8	25	0.002395324	47	0.004499761	72.00239532	0.003447895	8	200	376
9	9	0.000862317	17	0.001627573	26.00086232	0.001245073	9	81	153
10	6	0.000574878	9	0.000861656	15.00057488	0.000718315	10	60	90
11	4	0.000383252	5	0.000478698	9.000383252	0.000430991	11	44	55
12	3	0.000287439	1	9.57396E-05	4.000287439	0.000191557	12	36	12
13	1	9.5813E-05	0	0	1.000095813	4.78904E-05	13	13	0
14	1	9.5813E-05	2	0.000191479	3.000095813	0.000143662	14	14	28
15	0	0	1	9.57396E-05	1	4.78858E-05	15	0	15
totals	10437	1	10445	1	20883	1	41007	20182	20825

are both Zumma for 1600 shoes
I did not see this data in their book (the book is on a CD)

length	z1000	z600	total	prob
1	18810	10624	29434	0.50835046
2	9126	5210	14336	0.247595033
3	4599	2568	7167	0.123780246
4	2270	1283	3553	0.061363362
5	1167	605	1772	0.030603962
6	553	302	855	0.014766584
7	246	159	405	0.006994698
8	113	72	185	0.003195109
9	64	26	90	0.001554377
10	35	15	50	0.000863543
11	21	9	30	0.000518126
12	10	4	14	0.000241792
13	2	1	3	5.18126E-05
14	1	3	4	6.90834E-05
15	1	1	2	3.45417E-05
16	1		1	1.72709E-05
totals	37019	20882	57901	1

I really think you should re-think your conclusions based on the first Expectation that you showed

I can show more than 1600 shoes
I actually have data for 1 million of them.
Maybe I should sell that data.
extra cash

Sally

How may BitCoins for the million ?

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Gee, you'd think that if it were profitable your bankroll would have grown by now.

Typical assumptions from someone who doesn't know. Ah hell if Egalite can do it so I am going to do it too!

I have won 30 of my last 31 sessions pulling in 700,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 units. Because of this now every time I head to a casino, they pay me not to play and lavish me with Klingon cleavage. Not only that the casino sets me up with JJ and her amazing BS in trying to pry a couple of green level chips while on all fours. Plus I have acquired many casino coupons and have amassed a personal collection of Rolex Watches! On my next trips the casinos will fly me out on their own dime with one of Warren Buffet's private jets.

Yeah that's right. All paid for by the casino.

Quote: DMSCR

Typical assumptions from someone who doesn't know. Ah hell if Egalite can do it so I am going to do it too!

I have won 30 of my last 31 sessions pulling in 700,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 units. Because of this now every time I head to a casino, they pay me not to play and lavish me with Klingon cleavage. Not only that the casino sets me up with juicejennie and her amazing BS in trying to pry a couple of green level chips while on all fours.

I just wonder how you define "profitable". I'd say that if your bankroll is not growing, it is not very profitable.

But, perhaps you have redefined "profitable" in some way. It's funny how all those players like you and gr8 who play -EV games see their bankroll never growing, supplement it from their income, and are always scrounging around looking for the lowest limit games that they can find. You would think that if your play was "profitable" you would seek higher limits, so that you could win more money. Winning players are usually far more concerned with the max bet than the min!

But, perhaps you mean something else by "profitable".

Klingon cleavage and JJ rubbing my feet all on the casinos dime = profitable.

Oh and the Rolex Watches too.

You baccarat players are a little strange.

Offer a bet which is profitable for me, and my first question is, how much can I bet?
Offer a bet which is "profitable" for you, and you are asking "how little can I bet? where are the green chip tables? Do you have anything lower limit?"

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

You baccarat players are a little strange.

Offer a bet which is profitable for me, and my first question is, how much can I bet?
Offer a bet which is "profitable" for you, and you are asking "how little can I bet? where are the green chip tables? Do you have anything lower limit?"

Exactly. But, he does have a Rolex watches, his system must work.

what kind of Rolexes? certainly they are registered and you have certificates and serial numbers.

Quote: DMSCR

To tell you the truth, I HATE gambling and would do anything to make sure things does not end up that way. If baccarat ever becomes unprofitable, volatile and inconsistent I would leave in a heart beat.

Hello, D-man.

Wow. I can't imagine someone playing in a casino that "hates gambling".

I like it. I enjoy the "cat and mouse" of it all. The challenge of getting ahead and staying ahead.

That said, I certainly do agree that if "it ever becomes unprofitable", I, too, would cease playing it. It's all just too much of a pain in the butt for me to find all of the time necessary, the traveling and the expenses and the lack of available time, for me to justify engaging a losing proposition.

Stay well, my friend.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

You baccarat players are a little strange.

Offer a bet which is profitable for me, and my first question is, how much can I bet?
Offer a bet which is "profitable" for you, and you are asking "how little can I bet? where are the green chip tables? Do you have anything lower limit?"

Oh no, AxiomOfChoice, it appears that you're simply not familiar with our way of thinking and how it relates to our over-all success.

Firstly, there is no "how much can I bet". Ever. Why? Because there exists no singular bet that we can "load up" on. My play is dependent in part by a "collection" and/or "series" of bets; there is no "one bet" answer to my play. So there exists no reason to ask "how much can I bet" as if I knew I couldn't lose that bet. Honestly, AxiomOfChoice, that very notion is well-beneath your own level of intelligence, IMHO. A bit surprising coming from you.

Secondly, there exists, in every serious player, a personal "comfort zone". And one's success is dependent upon remaining in that comfort zone by designing their play around it. Look, I flat-bet most of the time...why bet blacks when I could be betting pumpkins? Well, here's why: what about those times where I need to adjust my unit size level just a bit upward? Now I go from one pumpkin to two, maybe then three or, dare I say, four? I couldn't handle those types of bets; not necessarily dollar-wise, but mentally, I'm afraid I might be hesitant to place such a wager, and....see the consequences....I'm "off my game". I can't play my game as I designed it. Now, I'm relegated to being just another "over-betting gambler" looking to "take the chandeliers home with me". Can't let that happen. Ever. You see, my friend, that very notion is beneath my level of intelligence.

So we play our game as best we can, with unit sizes that are compatible with our comfort zones and our money-management adjustments, when deemed as necessary.

Lastly, AxiomOfChoice, I must say, we're not even a "little strange" at all. We're only "strange" to your way of thinking, to your mindset, and to the way you perceive this game called Baccarat.

Stay well.

Quote: gr8player

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

You baccarat players are a little strange.

Offer a bet which is profitable for me, and my first question is, how much can I bet?
Offer a bet which is "profitable" for you, and you are asking "how little can I bet? where are the green chip tables? Do you have anything lower limit?"

Oh no, AxiomOfChoice, it appears that you're simply not familiar with our way of thinking and how it relates to our over-all success.
Whenever you use the term "our way of thinking", to whom do you refer?

Firstly, there is no "how much can I bet". Ever. Why? Because there exists no singular bet that we can "load up" on I am guessing and hoping, and cannot prove a mathematical advantage. My play is should be dependent in part whole by a "collection" and/or "series" of bets; there is no "one bet" answer to my play whether I have an actual advantage or not. So there exists no reason to ask "how much can I bet" as if I knew I couldn't lose that bet whenever I do not have an advantage on the bet. Honestly, AxiomOfChoice, that very notion is well-beneath your own level of intelligence, IMHO. A bit surprising coming from you.

Secondly, there exists, in every serious player for every true advantage player, a personal "comfort zone" bankroll. And one's success is dependent upon remaining in that comfort zone betting within that bankroll by designing their play around it performing risk analysis and structuring betting levels accordingly. Look, I flat-bet most of the time...why bet blacks when I could be betting pumpkins? Well, here's why: what about those times where I need to adjust my unit size level just a bit upward? Now I go from one pumpkin to two, maybe then three or, dare I say, four? I couldn't handle those types of bets; not necessarily dollar-wise, but mentally, I'm afraid I might be hesitant to place such a wager unsure as to whether an advantage exists, and....see the consequences....I'm "off my game". I can't play my game as I designed it. Now, I'm relegated to being just another "over-betting gambler" looking to "take the chandeliers home with me". Can't let that happen. Ever. You see, my friend, that very notion is beneath my level of intelligence.

So we play our game as best we can, with unit sizes that are compatible with our comfort zones and our money-management adjustments bankrolls and risk assessments, when deemed as necessary.

Lastly, AxiomOfChoice, I must say, we're not even a "little strange" at all. We're only "strange" to your nearly everyone else's way of thinking, to your nearly everyone else's mindset, and to the way you perceive nearly everyone else perceives this game called Baccarat.

Stay well.

AxiomOfChoice seems to be an intelligent individual, and I expect him to have no problem countering your statements.
For the rest of us, I would like to remind everyone that you once likened yourself to the individuals counting cards at Blackjack; therefore, I took the liberty to make modifications to your statements that the rest of us can understand.

Hello, rob45, I trust all is well with you.

Apparently, my friend, your edit pencil is working just fine. Or, should I say, "just fine" to get your own points across.

You appear fixated upon my lack of "proof of mathematical advantage". And I totally understand your frustration in attempting to understand my stated positions while lacking said proof.

So be it.

Sometimes differences can be rather interesting, hence we find ourselves on a public gaming forum. Let's leave it that, shall we?

So be it.

Quote: AxelWolf

Exactly. But, he does have a Rolex watches, his system must work.

what kind of Rolexes? certainly they are registered and you have certificates and serial numbers.

He likes to wear the rolex while TK drives him around in his car.

How come all the fake APs like to talk about all the expensive things that they have bought? Is this supposed to trick someone into thinking that they are winning players or something?

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

He likes to wear the rolex while TK drives him around in his car.

How come all the fake APs like to talk about all the expensive things that they have bought? Is this supposed to trick someone into thinking that they are winning players or something?

Yes.

Quote: gr8player

Apparently, my friend, your edit pencil is working just fine. Or, should I say, "just fine" to get your own points across.

Thank you.
I prefer to think of it as effective communication, rather than stating that which may be considered incomprehensible.

Quote: gr8player

You appear fixated upon my lack of "proof of mathematical advantage".

You are correct. I cannot understand how success can be claimed without having a proven advantage.

Quote: gr8player

And I totally understand your frustration in attempting to understand my stated positions while lacking said proof.

You were correct with the (first) sentence above, but let's call this (second) sentence incorrect.
I am not attempting to understand your stated positions at all; one need not waste time attempting to comprehend the incomprehensible.
I have no need to understand your position; therefore, I have no need for frustration.

Quote: gr8player

Sometimes differences can be rather interesting, hence we find ourselves on a public gaming forum. Let's leave it that, shall we?

Unfortunately for you, both I and others here choose not to simply "leave it at that".
I agree that differences can be interesting, and spirited debate can often be a good thing.

To bring everything into perspective, you have been challenged many times on these forums.
The only concrete information anyone has received is that your "methods of play" are based upon "trending" and betting progressions, which do not prove advantage.
You talk about a game of negative expectation being profitable without giving examples of proven advantage for you as the player.
There exist only a few ways to "beat" this game, and those have been discussed. If your methods were such that they actually have been proven to provide advantage to you, yet you wish not to disclose such methods for fear of discovery (i.e., "burning out" a good play at certain locations), then I would completely understand.
With that said, you do not state anything of the sort; instead, you wish to openly claim success with methods which have been proven fallible.

Quote: gr8player

Oh no, AxiomOfChoice, it appears that you're simply not familiar with our way of thinking and how it relates to our over-all success.

Firstly, there is no "how much can I bet". Ever. Why? Because there exists no singular bet that we can "load up" on. My play is dependent in part by a "collection" and/or "series" of bets; there is no "one bet" answer to my play. So there exists no reason to ask "how much can I bet" as if I knew I couldn't lose that bet. Honestly, AxiomOfChoice, that very notion is well-beneath your own level of intelligence, IMHO. A bit surprising coming from you.

You seem to be confusing a profitable bet with one which you have no chance of losing. The baccarat bets are all profitable (for the casino!) but you still win some bets.

I understand what you are doing at the tables. You bet small. You quit when you are ahead. If you start losing you raise your bets to try to catch up. I just wonder how much you lose when the inevitable happens and you just keep losing. How much do you go off for? All those days when you hit your tiny win goals, wiped out (and then some) by a single session. Or maybe you quit before it gets that bad, but then you just keep losing when you come back. I also wonder what excuses you come up with to explain those away. Egalite called it "tilt". What do you call it?

I'll bet you are doing pretty well lifetime, though, if only it were not for those few terrible sessions. If only...

Also, gr8, I have a question for you. You have an interesting writing style, to say the least. Did you learn English from Nigerian email scammers or something?

Hello friend! I hope all finds you well today. I am the son of the late King Abdullahallah, and I find myself in need of your assistance. I would like to transfer the sum of SIXTY SEVEN MILLION United States dollars...

Is that a baccarat thing too? Does everyone need their own strange writing style? At least soxfan's style is amusing, hey hey (yup, it's grown on me too)

I agree with the demoscora, I hate casinos, and I don't even particularly enjoy playing baccarats anymore. I'm only in it for the cake, nothing more or less, hey hey!

Quote: rob45

To bring everything into perspective, you have been challenged many times on these forums.
The only concrete information anyone has received is that your "methods of play" are based upon "trending" and betting progressions, which do not prove advantage.
You talk about a game of negative expectation being profitable without giving examples of proven advantage for you as the player.
There exist only a few ways to "beat" this game, and those have been discussed. If your methods were such that they actually have been proven to provide advantage to you, yet you wish not to disclose such methods for fear of discovery (i.e., "burning out" a good play at certain locations), then I would completely understand.
With that said, you do not state anything of the sort; instead, you wish to openly claim success with methods which have been proven fallible.

Well said, rob45, good job; I respect your stated position.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

I understand what you are doing at the tables. You bet small. You quit when you are ahead. If you start losing you raise your bets to try to catch up. I just wonder how much you lose when the inevitable happens and you just keep losing. How much do you go off for? All those days when you hit your tiny win goals, wiped out (and then some) by a single session. Or maybe you quit before it gets that bad, but then you just keep losing when you come back. I also wonder what excuses you come up with to explain those away. Egalite called it "tilt". What do you call it?

I'll bet you are doing pretty well lifetime, though, if only it were not for those few terrible sessions. If only...

Congratulations, AxiomOfChoice. You've managed to figure it all out on your own. You've got me pegged all right. Good job.

Quote: mustangsally

My Dad has the Zumma books and the data you posted about the Zumma 600 is way off
not even close!

I came across those stats on a different website, they were posted by the infamous johnno/ egalite/ rolex watch.
Was interested in stats regarding streaks but they appear to be way off.

Quote: DMSCR

Klingon cleavage and JJ rubbing my feet all on the casinos dime = profitable.

Oh and the Rolex Watches too.

You are extemely jalous because you can't even get comp'd a burger.

Read more at removed by mod

See ya

Chow Soy (wine to go with the food)