rdw4potus
• Posts: 7237
Joined: Mar 11, 2010
April 14th, 2014 at 6:23:22 PM permalink
Quote: JyBrd0403

Since you brought up EV (Expected Value). I'm wondering what the EV is for a D'Alembert System for 100 trials on a 49% game. You're suppose to be down only -2 on Wins/Losses and the D'Alembert would win 49 units. What's the EV on that about +46 or so, for 100 trials?

How would it win 49 units? If it would win 49 units, why wouldn't the EV per 100 trials be 49? The system doesn't shift the long term expectation, which means it doesn't shift the average expected short-term expectation either (since you don't know what slice of the long-term you're going to get). So, the EV of the d'alambert is -2, just like the EV of any other method that doesn't alter the outcomes of hands is also -2.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
JyBrd0403
• Posts: 548
Joined: Jan 25, 2010
April 14th, 2014 at 6:36:31 PM permalink
Quote: rdw4potus

How would it win 49 units? If it would win 49 units, why wouldn't the EV per 100 trials be 49? The system doesn't shift the long term expectation, which means it doesn't shift the average expected short-term expectation either (since you don't know what slice of the long-term you're going to get). So, the EV of the d'alambert is -2, just like the EV of any other method that doesn't alter the outcomes of hands is also -2.

Since we were talking Phil Ivey, here's a quick lesson on detecting BS. The Systems Don't Work Guys always say you will lose MORE money when you play a system. Now with a D'Alembert, where the betting goes higher than just flat betting, the Systems Don't Work Guy says your EV is -2, just like you would be if you flat bet. See how you can detect that something wrong there. But, if you just listen to it and don't pay attention to the details, boy it sounded like a very sound, and well thought out arguement, not like BS at all.

1-2 is a loss of 3 units. D'Alembert wins 49 - 3 = +46.
AxiomOfChoice
• Posts: 5761
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
April 14th, 2014 at 6:37:56 PM permalink
He meant -2%. Obviously if you bet more you will lose more.
rdw4potus
• Posts: 7237
Joined: Mar 11, 2010
April 14th, 2014 at 7:03:10 PM permalink
Quote: JyBrd0403

D'Alembert wins 49 - 3 = +46.

Again...how? That's a pretty spectacular claim to make for 100 trials of unknown composition.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
soxfan
• Posts: 364
Joined: Oct 10, 2013
April 14th, 2014 at 7:14:28 PM permalink
Quote: evoque

I've heard he is a big fan of "sure-win" it runs;

1 1 2 2 3 4 5 7 9 12 16 22 29 39 52 69 92 123

you have to "let any winning bet ride" (a full parlay), horrendous mess if you do not snare a back to back win within a number of trials, oink oink.

How quaint, the john-O/egalite, etc., ad nauseum has returned, hey hey.
" Life is a well of joy; but where the rabble drinks too, all wells are poisoned!" Nietzsche
evoque
• Posts: 26
Joined: Apr 14, 2014
April 15th, 2014 at 9:42:17 AM permalink
Quote: RS

Every bet has a -EV for the player. How do you add up a bunch of negative numbers and reach a positive one?

Maybe it is because the original stake is also returned. So when you get paid .95 for every dollar wagered, you actually have made .95, so win two hands and you are 1.9 up. So the key is to guess more right than wrong, or use a negative progression to cushion the blow without risking the farm. Which of course something silly like "sure win", a martingale or fibonacci would do.
Twirdman
• Posts: 1004
Joined: Jun 5, 2013
April 15th, 2014 at 9:50:20 AM permalink
Quote: evoque

Maybe it is because the original stake is also returned. So when you get paid .95 for every dollar wagered, you actually have made .95, so win two hands and you are 1.9 up. So the key is to guess more right than wrong, or use a negative progression to cushion the blow without risking the farm. Which of course something silly like "sure win", a martingale or fibonacci would do.

Negative progressions don't work since you are risking the farm to win a peanut. I mean when you are willing to risk like 10k to get back your 5 dollar bet you will probably win most of the time but when you lose you are ruined. As for guessing more you are exactly right. Clearly the trick to win is being a psychic. And with those powers I can get you some easy seed money just take Randi's million dollar challenge prove your magical powers and there you go million dollar bankroll to use.
RS
• Posts: 8626
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
April 15th, 2014 at 12:29:39 PM permalink
Seriously people? "The key is to guess." Fibonacci sequence? Martingale is a sure win? Some shit system's EV is +46?

My God, people......this is astounding.
michael99000
• Posts: 2113
Joined: Jul 10, 2010
April 15th, 2014 at 12:37:04 PM permalink
Quote: evoque

So the key is to guess more right than wrong

I hate when people give away my system on public forums
Dracula
• Posts: 68
Joined: Apr 14, 2014
April 15th, 2014 at 12:41:18 PM permalink
Lmao @ michael99000!
evoque
• Posts: 26
Joined: Apr 14, 2014
April 15th, 2014 at 2:10:49 PM permalink
Quote: Twirdman

Negative progressions don't work since you are risking the farm to win a peanut. I mean when you are willing to risk like 10k to get back your 5 dollar bet you will probably win most of the time but when you lose you are ruined. As for guessing more you are exactly right. Clearly the trick to win is being a psychic. And with those powers I can get you some easy seed money just take Randi's million dollar challenge prove your magical powers and there you go million dollar bankroll to use.

Well yes you are sort of right, only a dunce would risk \$10k to win \$5. So somewhere in the middle, scrub that, something a little more conservative & no you don't have to be a psychic, play a simple game of probability, nothing magical about it.

Accept the tools you are presented & get on with the job which is to vacate with more money than you arrived with. Isn't every game inside a casino governed by how much you bet, yes some will contest, bet more when they know they have the edge (BJ). Well there is no edge playing Baccarat when trying to predict which side is going to win, yet it doesn't stop some from winning, even doubling what they buy in for on a fairly consistent basis.

The issue is that many on this board share the same mind-set of most casino personnel. That being, if the gambler can't predict which side is going to win, then the game is safe [sic]. That's dandy by me, love it when they think like that, I will continue doing what I do & continuing raking money as I am able. I suppose there is no harm in using guesses, as each hand is close to 50-50 anyway. However much I prefer not to punt and play a more ridge game and now the naysayers will spring to life & repeat the mantra two negative numbers can't possible turn into a positive number, or a house edge with no players edge is a losing proposition, therefore impossible to win, prove it, where is the evidence, sniggers up sleeves and so forth.

What can one do, post everything on a public forum to prove a point? Expect the esteemed members to accept somebody at face value because they posted on the internet? I would do neither, suffice to say, everything is/was laid bare, the dreaded negative progression used to compensate for the players edge absence, the round-robin bet selection used (they all resolve equally regardless, so are of minor significance), snapshots of score cards not only highlighting that "not everybody replicates what is displayed electronically", also when, where and how much was bet. It's on the web, you just need to know where to look. Of course some are so consumed by this less than 1.5% house edge and maths, that Gonzalo Garcia-Pelayo couldn't possibly have made over 1M. Certainly no skin off my nose, my primarily concern is only one thing me making tax free report to nobody cash. What others decide to believe or otherwise is of no significance, that Clint Eastwood statement regarding opinions springs to mind.
evoque
• Posts: 26
Joined: Apr 14, 2014
April 15th, 2014 at 2:15:28 PM permalink
Quote: evoque

So the key is to guess more right than wrong

Quote: michael99000

I hate when people give away my system on public forums

The irony was missed, the intent never came across displayed as pixels on a computer screen, the OP remark delibrately flippant.

Have a good day
evoque
• Posts: 26
Joined: Apr 14, 2014
April 15th, 2014 at 2:34:49 PM permalink
Quote: soxfan

How quaint, the john-O/egalite, etc., ad nauseum has returned, hey hey.

I couldn't possibly take a guess at the reasoning for your confusion, although am slightly confused why you find the need to write "hey hey" at the end of every post? Do you metaphorise to some fantasy world, or perhaps a "late-life" crisis once you post on gambling forums? The reason I ask, because you don't subject your facebook friends to such repetitive boorish traits.
Twirdman
• Posts: 1004
Joined: Jun 5, 2013
April 15th, 2014 at 2:42:07 PM permalink
Quote: evoque

Well yes you are sort of right, only a dunce would risk \$10k to win \$5. So somewhere in the middle, scrub that, something a little more conservative & no you don't have to be a psychic, play a simple game of probability, nothing magical about it.

Accept the tools you are presented & get on with the job which is to vacate with more money than you arrived with. Isn't every game inside a casino governed by how much you bet, yes some will contest, bet more when they know they have the edge (BJ). Well there is no edge playing Baccarat when trying to predict which side is going to win, yet it doesn't stop some from winning, even doubling what they buy in for on a fairly consistent basis.

The issue is that many on this board share the same mind-set of most casino personnel. That being, if the gambler can't predict which side is going to win, then the game is safe [sic]. That's dandy by me, love it when they think like that, I will continue doing what I do & continuing raking money as I am able. I suppose there is no harm in using guesses, as each hand is close to 50-50 anyway. However much I prefer not to punt and play a more ridge game and now the naysayers will spring to life & repeat the mantra two negative numbers can't possible turn into a positive number, or a house edge with no players edge is a losing proposition, therefore impossible to win, prove it, where is the evidence, sniggers up sleeves and so forth.

What can one do, post everything on a public forum to prove a point? Expect the esteemed members to accept somebody at face value because they posted on the internet? I would do neither, suffice to say, everything is/was laid bare, the dreaded negative progression used to compensate for the players edge absence, the round-robin bet selection used (they all resolve equally regardless, so are of minor significance), snapshots of score cards not only highlighting that "not everybody replicates what is displayed electronically", also when, where and how much was bet. It's on the web, you just need to know where to look. Of course some are so consumed by this less than 1.5% house edge and maths, that Gonzalo Garcia-Pelayo couldn't possibly have made over 1M. Certainly no skin off my nose, my primarily concern is only one thing me making tax free report to nobody cash. What others decide to believe or otherwise is of no significance, that Clint Eastwood statement regarding opinions springs to mind.

Pelayo didn't use a betting system to win he employed wheel bias. Yes if there is a difference between what should be the odds and the odds for the device you are using you can capitalize on that to win a lot of money. You however have not shown how the odds of banker or player coming up change at all from what they are stated as. Again Pelayo was playing with a 15% player edge enough to make a lot of money can you show you are playing with a player edge when making your baccarat bets since otherwise you have negative numbers adding up to positive numbers and that just don't work.
soxfan
• Posts: 364
Joined: Oct 10, 2013
April 15th, 2014 at 5:52:29 PM permalink
Quote: evoque

I couldn't possibly take a guess at the reasoning for your confusion, although am slightly confused why you find the need to write "hey hey" at the end of every post? Do you metaphorise to some fantasy world, or perhaps a "late-life" crisis once you post on gambling forums? The reason I ask, because you don't subject your facebook friends to such repetitive boorish traits.

Come on, john-O/carlo/egalite/peter keating etc., ad nauseum, tell us all how your vaunted templates give you a 50%+ strike rate. I'll break out the Guinness and cashews as you're always good for a few laughs, if nothing else, hey hey.
" Life is a well of joy; but where the rabble drinks too, all wells are poisoned!" Nietzsche
evoque
• Posts: 26
Joined: Apr 14, 2014
April 16th, 2014 at 9:46:19 AM permalink
Quote: soxfan

Come on, john-O/carlo/egalite/peter keating etc., ad nauseum, tell us all how your vaunted templates give you a 50%+ strike rate. I'll break out the Guinness and cashews as you're always good for a few laughs, if nothing else, hey hey.

You still appear rather confusing Fergy, actually Mister "hey hey", if you were ever on the ball, you would have noticed that on the first shoe of every recent session played I've struck between 64 ~ 61% for the first shoe.

This dips when there are no other players and I am then forced to bet every hand, which incidently I averaged 54%, better than the self anointed one. The difference being that I snap a picture of my score card as played a few hours earlier and post the image online, takes me all of about 5 minutes while I unwind. No inventing of false claims, no scaredy cats dude, no pretending to be living or acting out some fantasy on da internets,, no lurking in the back ground posting "hey's hey" one liners and acting the Walter Mitty.

Hugos
evoque
• Posts: 26
Joined: Apr 14, 2014
April 16th, 2014 at 10:17:51 AM permalink
Quote: Twirdman

Pelayo was playing with a 15% player edge enough to make a lot of money can you show you are playing with a player edge when making your baccarat bets since otherwise you have negative numbers adding up to positive numbers and that just don't work.

While you are right, I'm afraid it does work. Sure I could flat bet and hope to get lucky or limit losses whatever the case may be, rather due to there being "no edge" I employ a negative progression which has ending positive. I don't win every shoe, some shoes I lose, occasionally I might lose more bets than I win back to back this is the nature of the beast, similar to any BJ player experiencing a bad run lasting weeks or months, or losing a series of hands against a high count, sh*t happens, it's called gambling.

Quote: Twirdman

You however have not shown how the odds of banker or player coming up change at all from what they are stated as.

Correct, I cannot predict anything, I know I won't be able to predict anything therefore place no reliance on doing so. I base my game around probability. This is a basic example and not representative of the exact way which I play and before anybody points out that it all resolves 50-50 with any progression, I am already acutely aware of that.

Take two possible hands in Baccarat ignoring Ties.

The outcomes could be; BB BP PB or PP, pick any one of the four options, pick one side only and you have a 75% chance of winning at least 1 hand within 2 bets and a 25% chance of losing both bets (you don't make any 2nd bet if you win the first).

Yes I fully comprehend it all balances out, flat betting or using any negative progression. Also the figure of 75% is nowhere near robust enough, which is why the progression without being stupid or reckless is paramount for this game, it is a manage your roll type of coin flip game. How I play is loosely based on the same probability premise, I gave up this so called guessing and wondering what will the shoe do next garbage about a decade ago.

I make a decent living playing this game, have done so for quite some time, no I do not write down what is displayed on the electronic score board, mostly I pay scant attentiont, because those hands are in the past, irrelevant and meaningless, I try to be pragmatic about such things.
soxfan
• Posts: 364
Joined: Oct 10, 2013
April 16th, 2014 at 7:46:34 PM permalink
Ah, the john-O the clown show is as entertaining as ever, I must say, hey hey.
" Life is a well of joy; but where the rabble drinks too, all wells are poisoned!" Nietzsche
michael99000
• Posts: 2113
Joined: Jul 10, 2010
April 16th, 2014 at 11:43:26 PM permalink
Quote: evoque

You still appear rather confusing Fergy, actually Mister "hey hey", if you were ever on the ball, you would have noticed that on the first shoe of every recent session played I've struck between 64 ~ 61% for the first shoe.

This dips when there are no other players and I am then forced to bet every hand, which incidently I averaged 54%, better than the self anointed one. The difference being that I snap a picture of my score card as played a few hours earlier and post the image online, takes me all of about 5 minutes while I unwind. No inventing of false claims, no scaredy cats dude, no pretending to be living or acting out some fantasy on da internets,, no lurking in the back ground posting "hey's hey" one liners and acting the Walter Mitty.

Hugos

Welcome back Egalite. Sorry to hear you're still pissing money away in a -EV game.

Even sorrier to hear you're not aware of it.
DMSCR
• Posts: 774
Joined: Apr 15, 2012
April 17th, 2014 at 12:47:49 AM permalink
Egalite now evoque better not get himself banned in here for the third time. His posts and rants add flavor the bac threads/posts in here. He does deserve credit though since he is one of those rare few who posts his actual cards and at times his chips and big wads of cash!
evoque
• Posts: 26
Joined: Apr 14, 2014
April 17th, 2014 at 7:37:08 PM permalink
Quote: michael99000

Quote: evoque

You still appear rather confusing Fergy, actually Mister "hey hey", if you were ever on the ball, you would have noticed that on the first shoe of every recent session played I've struck between 64 ~ 61% for the first shoe.

This dips when there are no other players and I am then forced to bet every hand, which incidently I averaged 54%, better than the self anointed one. The difference being that I snap a picture of my score card as played a few hours earlier and post the image online, takes me all of about 5 minutes while I unwind. No inventing of false claims, no scaredy cats dude, no pretending to be living or acting out some fantasy on da internets,, no lurking in the back ground posting "hey's hey" one liners and acting the Walter Mitty.

Hugos

Welcome back Egalite. Sorry to hear you're still pissing money away in a -EV game.

Even sorrier to hear you're not aware of it.

While I have no idea what you are talking about, I am sure you will be pleased that I won "yet" again tonight. Unfortuntely due to triedness I only played fours shoes and only just missed out on raking in less than 100% of my buyin playing an -EV game. This puts me behind my goal target of making 300 units over easter, I shall endevour to make that up over the next two nights by pushing things playing a -EV game.
DMSCR
• Posts: 774
Joined: Apr 15, 2012
April 17th, 2014 at 8:12:55 PM permalink
Quote: evoque

While I have no idea what you are talking about, I am sure you will be pleased that I won "yet" again tonight. Unfortuntely due to triedness I only played fours shoes and only just missed out on raking in less than 100% of my buyin playing an -EV game. This puts me behind my goal target of making 300 units over easter, I shall endevour to make that up over the next two nights by pushing things playing a -EV game.

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img202/4892/hci.gif
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img89/8158/291.gif

Hi Peter Keating/egalite/RolexWatch,

Yes you won "yet" again.

Saw that pic you posted on baccaratlabs with your big Aussi \$tack\$\$\$ couple with that ash tray with all those cancer sticks. So I got a question. Was that huge \$\$\$ stack your re-buy in from a beat down in trying to grind your typical 20 hour play to break even? Inquiring minds want to know.
evoque
• Posts: 26
Joined: Apr 14, 2014
April 17th, 2014 at 8:32:43 PM permalink
Quote: DMSCR

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img202/4892/hci.gif
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img89/8158/291.gif

Hi Peter Keating/egalite/RolexWatch,

Yes you won "yet" again.

Saw that pic you posted on baccaratlabs with your big Aussi \$tack\$\$\$ couple with that ash tray with all those cancer sticks. So I got a question. Was that huge \$\$\$ stack your re-buy in from a beat down in trying to grind your typical 20 hour play to break even? Inquiring minds want to know.

Mods, isn't this classed as TROLLING, the same offense which Beethoven9th was suspended for? If you notice, DMSCR only responds once he becomes fixated with a subject.
GodofBACC
• Posts: 6
Joined: Apr 19, 2014
April 19th, 2014 at 1:37:06 AM permalink
Quote: DMSCR

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img202/4892/hci.gif

Hi Peter Keating/egalite/RolexWatch,

Yes you won "yet" again.

Saw that pic you posted on baccaratlabs with your big Aussi \$tack\$\$\$ couple with that ash tray with all those cancer sticks. So I got a question. Was that huge \$\$\$ stack your re-buy in from a beat down in trying to grind your typical 20 hour play to break even? Inquiring minds want to know.

Like a miffed child, "I'm telling miss on you". I realised by your unwarranted venom on BF you definitely with had many screws missing, or more than likely have a uncontrollable gambling addiction which is severely impacting the bottom line, both scenarios are extremely plausible I am most elated to say. Think about me next time you are riding the bus to the casino, let the jealousy, envy and anger well up inside of you, until you are totally consumed by it and are unable to recognise patterns in side patterns (LOL).
DMSCR
• Posts: 774
Joined: Apr 15, 2012
April 19th, 2014 at 1:43:35 AM permalink
Quote: GodofBACC

Like a miffed child, "I'm telling miss on you". I realised by your unwarranted venom on BF you definitely with had many screws missing, or more than likely have a uncontrollable gambling addiction which is severely impacting the bottom line, both scenarios are extremely plausible I am most elated to say. Think about me next time you are riding the bus to the casino, let the jealousy, envy and anger well up inside of you, until you are totally consumed by it and are unable to recognise patterns in side patterns (LOL).

Quote: egalite

I still aim to make 20k per month, this month I'll probably do about half that, which is a damn sight more than working for a living, regarding the tilt session, most of that has since been recouped fool. Hey since you have great admiration and a hard on for Walter Mitty, I've heard GR8 has a few empty rooms at the moment, how about you' two hook up for some "bromance", surely a damn sight less risky than the crack whore which you thought it was worth bragging about on the defunct BF site.

Regarding TILT etc, this thread provided all the motivation I could possibly ever need, big deal you think you know something I don't (LOL), quit acting like a miffed spoilt brat, who gives a shit, I certainly don't. Players you actually chat to face to face at the tables rarely bother with internet forums, even less so in the VIP rooms. As for all those benefits the casino chucked at me, I would have got them regardless of how my sessions ran, you fucking imbecile (my ban will be my blessing in disguise). DMSCR the mental case.

Really glad you are back again egalite! That was really quick. Also thanks to you I learned a new word today. "Miffed." Looks like that third ban has gotten to you given your long winded sentence structure. Dude do yourself a favor. You are much more appreciated/welcomed over at baccaratlabs where people are making good use of your contribution there. You being here where it is not baccarat friendly is driving you nuts.

One more thing. I seriously hope you never play or think of playing/learning poker. You are too Teddy KGB.

GodofBACC
• Posts: 6
Joined: Apr 19, 2014
April 19th, 2014 at 3:00:28 AM permalink
It is not driving me nuts in the slightest, it is driving you nuts, that I am/was here at all , don’t ever think I need this site despite your best efforts. You make way far too many assumptions literally about everything. How are the top-shelf LA hookers treating you? If you didn’t have such a petulance child-like persona, I'm sure you could score yourself some regular booty without having to pay for it, then again maybe not, difficult when your a grub.

You don’t actually contribute much substance to this board do you, a bit like the other Walter Mitty “Huge Ferguson” with his fantasy of playing professionally using a “sure-win” progression, yet couldn’t provide any indication he actually made it within 5 miles of any casino, ditto Roberto Preston, no evidence, whereas yours truly, well I can post the cards, the money, the chips, even surreptitiously taken video’s while at the tables.

Doubtless this account will be nuked, defo no biggie, there is an obvious bias here, much to your selfish delight, yes you can rub your hands in glee while riding the bus lol. BTW Never heard of a big time successful Baccarat player riding a bus WTF!!! The only reason for my resurrection (besides it being Easter), is these so called self-professed AP’s on this site, who think they are some elitist group and are the only ones who can take money out of casinos on a regular and consistent basis. Sure two negative numbers don’t make a positive number on a calculator, this why they are math-heads first and foremost and gamblers second.

Before my imminent departure, I will share a true story about a very good BJ counter down-under, he regularly took an annual six figure sum from the the local coffers of one particular casino. After a couple of years, he starts sitting at the Baccarat table, trying to figure out which side was going to win next, soon after he was stone cold broke. Not exactly sure why he switched games, some suggest he got “flat betted” at the BJ tables, lost his roll, not sure, yet his story is far from unique. I know people on the web and personally who are former card counters who now play other casino games.

Maintaining the count, enjoying 1%, 2% or more edge, side counts, masking your play, getting 86’d (I got 86’d due to my Baccarat style of play from one casino, although they never admitted as much they didn't have to, yet believe that, they didn't like me treating the game as a business, go figure), it is not the be all and end all, like some here espouse and certainly an ‘on-paper definable maths edge’ is not a pre-requirement to winning on a consistent basis, and with the bankroll it is possible to earn a decent wedge, then again with a massive bankroll so you can perform “gear changes” if and when required, you can become indestructible (you do have to stay in control though, the avoiding tilt thread was exceptionally helpful when it comes to ‘personal drive’ ;-) .

ciao
djatc
• Posts: 4477
Joined: Jan 15, 2013
April 19th, 2014 at 4:06:55 AM permalink
Quote: GodofBACC

It is not driving me nuts in the slightest, it is driving you nuts, that I am/was here at all , don’t ever think I need this site despite your best efforts. You make way far too many assumptions literally about everything. How are the top-shelf LA hookers treating you? If you didn’t have such a petulance child-like persona, I'm sure you could score yourself some regular booty without having to pay for it, then again maybe not, difficult when your a grub.

You don’t actually contribute much substance to this board do you, a bit like the other Walter Mitty “Huge Ferguson” with his fantasy of playing professionally using a “sure-win” progression, yet couldn’t provide any indication he actually made it within 5 miles of any casino, ditto Roberto Preston, no evidence, whereas yours truly, well I can post the cards, the money, the chips, even surreptitiously taken video’s while at the tables.

Doubtless this account will be nuked, defo no biggie, there is an obvious bias here, much to your selfish delight, yes you can rub your hands in glee while riding the bus lol. BTW Never heard of a big time successful Baccarat player riding a bus WTF!!! The only reason for my resurrection (besides it being Easter), is these so called self-professed AP’s on this site, who think they are some elitist group and are the only ones who can take money out of casinos on a regular and consistent basis. Sure two negative numbers don’t make a positive number on a calculator, this why they are math-heads first and foremost and gamblers second.

Before my imminent departure, I will share a true story about a very good BJ counter down-under, he regularly took an annual six figure sum from the the local coffers of one particular casino. After a couple of years, he starts sitting at the Baccarat table, trying to figure out which side was going to win next, soon after he was stone cold broke. Not exactly sure why he switched games, some suggest he got “flat betted” at the BJ tables, lost his roll, not sure, yet his story is far from unique. I know people on the web and personally who are former card counters who now play other casino games.

Maintaining the count, enjoying 1%, 2% or more edge, side counts, masking your play, getting 86’d (I got 86’d due to my Baccarat style of play from one casino, although they never admitted as much they didn't have to, yet believe that, they didn't like me treating the game as a business, go figure), it is not the be all and end all, like some here espouse and certainly an ‘on-paper definable maths edge’ is not a pre-requirement to winning on a consistent basis, and with the bankroll it is possible to earn a decent wedge, then again with a massive bankroll so you can perform “gear changes” if and when required, you can become indestructible (you do have to stay in control though, the avoiding tilt thread was exceptionally helpful when it comes to ‘personal drive’ ;-) .

ciao

Tldr: why do bac system players all spout a ton of nonsense and never make any statistical/mathematical sense? Its like they get paid per word they type, but if they start making sense they don't get paid for the wall of text.
"Man Babes" #AxelFabulous
Guest2
• Posts: 5
Joined: Apr 19, 2014
April 19th, 2014 at 6:25:37 AM permalink
Quote: djatc

Tldr: why do bac system players all spout a ton of nonsense and never make any statistical/mathematical sense? Its like they get paid per word they type, but if they start making sense they don't get paid for the wall of text.

Who ever said it doesn't make statistical sense? Is it not easier to win a single bet within a series of bets, than every bet within the same series sample. How can you make such a statement without knowing the full picture? Oh yes, I see it is due to the fact there is a minor house edge and two negative numbers can't possible make a positive number, yeah that kinda makes sense when sitting a maths test. However a negative progression can over-come such minor hindrances, and I'm not talking about keep on betting more and more and more until one goes broke, which is usually the first conclusion you so called "AP" fall back to.
AxiomOfChoice
• Posts: 5761
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
April 19th, 2014 at 10:30:00 AM permalink
Quote: djatc

Tldr: why do bac system players all spout a ton of nonsense and never make any statistical/mathematical sense? Its like they get paid per word they type, but if they start making sense they don't get paid for the wall of text.

If they were capable of doing anything other than spewing nonsense, they would not be looking for a way to beat a -EV game with a betting system.
JyBrd0403
• Posts: 548
Joined: Jan 25, 2010
April 28th, 2014 at 2:40:41 PM permalink
So, were you able to figure out the EV for the D'Alembert for 100 trials?

I found the EV formula below for the Martingale.

'The mathematical expectation of your win is:
E[P]=∑k=1Napk+(−SN)(1−p)N=a[1−(1−p)N−(1−p)N(2N−1)]=a[1−(2(1−p))N]

Notice the base of the exponential 2(1−p). I said p≤1/2⇒1−p≥1/2, 2(1−p)≥1. This means that only in a fair game your expectation profit is zero. For an unfair game, it is even negative, and rises without bound if you keep increasing the steps.'

I have no idea if the formula is correct or not, but the conclusions the guy made were accurate.

The formula for the D'Alembert is probably much more complex, since you don't return to 1 unit after every win.