How Does the Wizard Define Long-Term?
I had a computer geek run 1 million randomly generated binary code results. In other words, a bunch of 0's and 1's. I analyzed the common patterns (it took months) and discovered 0011 or its opposite 1100 is the most common pattern. Next was 1010 or 0101. After that was 0000 or 1111. I also analyzed the length of each of these patterns to determine the short range and long range.
I substituted Banker and Player for the 0's and 1's. I realize the Banker has a slight advantage over Player which the 0's and 1's do not. I then tried different methods based on the binary data by testing them on your wizardofodds baccarat game because the cards are removed as they would be in a real shoe. Some methods worked for a while, but eventually went down in flames.
But then it happened, a method that just keeps winning. I played 200 shoes on your site and won 144 of them for +232 units, including commission. I told my friend about it and taught him the method. He played 100 shoes on your site and won 71 of them for +108 units. While he was doing that, I hit the real tables and won 36 out of 48 shoes for +2282 real money (I kept all scorecards). I taught my girlfriend how to play and she won 28 out of 40 on your site for +33 units. A bet is either a 1 unit or 2 unit bet, nothing higher. I bet about 75% of hands with a win goal of +5 units, then make the next bet and leave if it loses. Loss limit is -10. Most shoes the goal is met in the first 30 hands. So that's nearly 400 documented shoes. How many more before it gets the Wizard stamp of approval? I live in Vegas, play mostly at the Gold Coast, come see for yourself if you like.
Quote: winbacMr. Shackleford, you state time and again that all betting systems are worthless. Could you define exactly how long the long-term is? For example, how many baccarat shoes must a system win for you to acknowledge the system won? Your answer is important to me because I know you'll give me an answer based on math, not guesses or hunches. Also, if any system were to receive your stamp of approval, it could certainly be labeled a winning system.
I had a computer geek run 1 million randomly generated binary code results. In other words, a bunch of 0's and 1's. I analyzed the common patterns (it took months) and discovered 0011 or its opposite 1100 is the most common pattern. Next was 1010 or 0101. After that was 0000 or 1111. I also analyzed the length of each of these patterns to determine the short range and long range.
I substituted Banker and Player for the 0's and 1's. I realize the Banker has a slight advantage over Player which the 0's and 1's do not. I then tried different methods based on the binary data by testing them on your wizardofodds baccarat game because the cards are removed as they would be in a real shoe. Some methods worked for a while, but eventually went down in flames.
But then it happened, a method that just keeps winning. I played 200 shoes on your site and won 144 of them for +232 units, including commission. I told my friend about it and taught him the method. He played 100 shoes on your site and won 71 of them for +108 units. While he was doing that, I hit the real tables and won 36 out of 48 shoes for +2282 real money (I kept all scorecards). I taught my girlfriend how to play and she won 28 out of 40 on your site for +33 units. A bet is either a 1 unit or 2 unit bet, nothing higher. I bet about 75% of hands with a win goal of +5 units, then make the next bet and leave if it loses. Loss limit is -10. Most shoes the goal is met in the first 30 hands. So that's nearly 400 documented shoes. How many more before it gets the Wizard stamp of approval? I live in Vegas, play mostly at the Gold Coast, come see for yourself if you like.
I'm a clairvoyant, and I predict that the Wizard will never christen your system as a winning system.
Quote: aceofspadesFoxwoods describes it is less than 16 hours (including sleep)
Took me a minute...hahaha.
Quote: aceofspadesFoxwoods describes it as less than 16 hours (including sleep)
no wonder Foxwoods is a winning system inventor's heaven
https://wizardofodds.com/ask-the-wizard/287/
2nd question
It is NOT how many shoes win, it is over how many bets are actually made.Quote: winbacMr. Shackleford, you state time and again that all betting systems are worthless. Could you define exactly how long the long-term is? For example, how many baccarat shoes must a system win for you to acknowledge the system won?
Bets NOT # of shoes
It really is that simple
slight!?Quote: winbacI realize the Banker has a slight advantage over Player which the 0's and 1's do not.
No way
it has a tremendous advantage
that actually varies as the cards are played out
sure it can, for awhile until it starts to loseQuote: winbacBut then it happened, a method that just keeps winning.
still, total bets matters
# of shoes mean nothing unless you play all 416! possible shoes (a very large number)
there is not 1 more than that
How many total bets (and of each kind) have you made
and from that data one can easily
figure out how often a blind squirrel playing Baccarat can beat your system
easy money
Sally
If I divide the 41588 hands listed for Banker by 15 bets per shoe, I need about 2772 shoes. The 32097 hands for Player / 15 is 2140 shoes. So I'll play another 300 shoes and be approximately 25% of the way there. That should start to give me some good data indications.
However, my question still remains to Mr. Shackleford, how many hands to declare a method or system a winner? The chart gives 90%, 95%, and 99%. I don't see 100%? But you do state "all" systems are worthless. I'd define "all" as 100%. How do you define it?
The only way you can see 100% is to play every possible shoe that can be played.Quote: winbacHowever, my question still remains to Mr. Shackleford, how many hands to declare a method or system a winner? The chart gives 90%, 95%, and 99%. I don't see 100%? But you do state "all" systems are worthless. I'd define "all" as 100%. How do you define it?
Have some computers set up and do it. It might take a few months but the answer will be there.
That chart the Wiz has even at 99.9% means that 1 in 1000 are still beating the casino playing deaf dumb and blind!
say the are 1 billion true random Bac players (they flip a coin to see what side to bet on)
1 million are still beating the game at the 99.9% level, they think they are Gods btw, just playing blind and the bet selection is by flipping a coin only.
impressive
but nice to be a winner no matter what system is used
so try playing enough bets at the 1 in a million confidence level
about 1000 are still beating Baccarat flipping a coin for their bet selection
it might be me as I am a real lucky girl!
How does that grab you?
think you have a skill (you found a winning system for X bets)
or is it just plain old dumb luck
have fun either way!
Sally
Quote: winbacMr. Shackleford, you state time and again that all betting systems are worthless. I live in Vegas, play mostly at the Gold Coast, come see for yourself if you like.
Think about it this way.... Casinos made 10's of BILLIONS of dollars on baccarat last year... And people spend there whole lives looking for an imaginary holy grail to beat baccarat,,,,, So what do you really think the likelihood is that YOU are the one to find it? Outside of either illegal or quasi-legal techniques, you won't beat baccarat.
If you are still hanging around this forum when I come in October I would be happy to watch you use your system, hopefully to great success.
I noticed in the chart, the Wizard explains those numbers are for betting the same amount in each hand, which I don't do. I use a 1 unit and 2 unit bet. I'm not sure how that changes the numbers.
As for the Holy Grail, that's still to be determined, which is why I began this conversation by asking about long-term data. Keep in mind I've not said the method works blindly. There are parameters, such as leaving when reaching the win goal. For example, let's say you have a system that breaks even in the long run. Is that a winning system? It sure is, because you can leave when you're ahead. What if you could make the odds bet in craps without having to make a line bet first? Could you win at that consistently? Yes, you sure could. The one big advantage we have over the casino is we decide when to play and when to quit. So the Holy Grail doesn't have to be something that wins blindly.
Someone asked about accurate records. Yes I have the results recorded for each shoe played on wizardofodds, and I have the scorecards from all live games I've played in the casinos. What I didn't have was the exact number of hands bet or the break down of Banker and Player bets because I didn't know that was necessary. I'll be keeping those records going forward.
If you are betting about even between 1 and 2 units you can use the numbers in that chart and calculate even higher confidence levels tooQuote: winbacI noticed in the chart, the Wizard explains those numbers are for betting the same amount in each hand, which I don't do. I use a 1 unit and 2 unit bet. I'm not sure how that changes the numbers.
as averages that have a some what normal distribution can still be considered as a unit.
But if you bet 1 unit 80% of the time and 2 units 20% of the time, or use a Marty etc, a very skewed bet distribution in other words
I would just simulate and/or calculate the values directly instead of using the central limit theorem just to be more accurate
There are a few ways to do this using a computer and convolution or my fav - Markov chains
Sally
Quote: mustangsallyIf you are betting about even between 1 and 2 units you can use the numbers in that chart and calculate even higher confidence levels too
as averages that have a some what normal distribution can still be considered as a unit.
But if you bet 1 unit 80% of the time and 2 units 20% of the time, or use a Marty etc, a very skewed bet distribution in other words
I would just simulate and/or calculate the values directly instead of using the central limit theorem just to be more accurate
There are a few ways to do this using a computer and convolution or my fav - Markov chains
Sally
C'mon, Sally. There is bound to be a time. Why don't you meet me in Montana, girl? I love a girl who has her math together.
They see the figures as dollars: not shoes, not zero and one ratios, but dollars.
You will have to explain how leaving when you are ahead changes the math. You are just going to come back and play again the next day/week/ month, right? Why must you leave, dose everything reset once you go home? Why leave? Just put your money in your pocket and pretend to leave. I know baccarat cards are sneaky bastards( THEY ARE ALWAY S WATCHING YOU)just Bring a disguise and change in the bathroom.Quote: winbacFor example, let's say you have a system that breaks even in the long run. Is that a winning system? It sure is, because you can leave when you're ahead.
Quote: winbac
If I divide the 41588 hands listed for Banker by 15 bets per shoe, I need about 2772 shoes. The 32097 hands for Player / 15 is 2140 shoes. So I'll play another 300 shoes and be approximately 25% of the way there. That should start to give me some good data indications.
You got it completely wrong.
The table Wiz listed is for the CASINO to show a profit. The CASINO has a mathematically proven edge!
For a player with negative edge, you need to play 416! shoes (I don't know where Sally got this number, but I like it :) ) to prove (at certain confidence level) you have a winning system.
Do you have any idea how big is 416! ?
Quote: AxelWolfYou will have to explain how leaving when you are ahead changes the math. You are just going to come back and play again the next day/week/ month, right? Why must you leave, dose everything reset once you go home? Why leave? Just put your money in your pocket and pretend to leave. I know baccarat cards are sneaky bastards( THEY ARE ALWAY S WATCHING YOU)just Bring a disguise and change in the bathroom.
When explaining probability, mathematicians are like the preacher promising the return of Jesus. Neither one can give you a date.
Math is valuable and shouldn't be dismissed, especially in a world of computers and technology. But there's a point where math crosses into a theoretical world and ceases to be practical. For example, math proved time travel is possible. Do you know anyone who's made that trip?
Let's pretend we can make the odds bet at a craps table without making a line bet. The Wizard will tell us if we stand at a craps table forever, we will break even. When exactly is forever completed? Like the preacher being asked when is Jesus coming, the answer is always at some future unknown date. If we played for an hour, would probability remain true and we break even? How about 2 days? A week? A year? Probability always has short term fluctuations, it's seldom exactly true. Mathematicians have a hard time with this, but will acknowledge it. So as we play at the table, there's times the 7 disappears for 40 rolls, and there's times it appears much more often than 1 out of 6 rolls. Both are fluctuations that will continue as we play. Most people play until they lose and run out of money, which means the casino was able to play through all the fluctuations and walk away when winning. Why not reverse those roles and walk away when your winning and the casino is losing?
Staying with the craps example, would you prefer to take or lay the odds? If the point is 4, taking odds gives you a 33.3% chance to win twice your bet, while laying odds gives you a 66.6% chance to win half your bet. Both are identical statistically. Most people would prefer to take the odds, but I would lay them because there's a better chance a short term fluctuation will swing towards the 66.6% chance of winning. I'm not saying it's a better bet, just my preference.
My point is that the fluctuations are more important than long term probability. In other words, fluctuations in probability are the practical world, while long term probability remaining true is a theoretical world.
Back to baccarat. My system has now won nearly 75% of over 400 shoes. From the Wizard's chart, I still have thousands of hands to play before I can declare it a winning system. To answer your question, you can win a shoe and go home or you can go play another shoe. It doesn't matter when the next shoe is played. I generally play 3 shoes and go home if I won them all. I'll play 5 shoes if 1 of the first 3 shoes were to lose. I play a few days a week at real tables. I don't have much time because of other responsibilities. I do play several shoes on Wizard to continue testing.
Quote: winbacThere are parameters, such as leaving when reaching the win goal.
Yes, it's always best to run home and tag your house before going back to the casino. It's very helpful.
Quote: winbacMost people play until they lose and run out of money, which means the casino was able to play through all the fluctuations and walk away when winning. Why not reverse those roles and walk away when your winning and the casino is losing?
If the bet is 0 EV, the house will not show an overall profit, regardless of people losing their bankrolls. For each of these, there is an equal number of people winning these bankrolls.
On average. Variance, of course, happens.
Quote: winbacWhen explaining probability, mathematicians are like the preacher promising the return of Jesus. Neither one can give you a date.
Math is valuable and shouldn't be dismissed, especially in a world of computers and technology. But there's a point where math crosses into a theoretical world and ceases to be practical. For example, math proved time travel is possible. Do you know anyone who's made that trip?
Let's pretend we can make the odds bet at a craps table without making a line bet. The Wizard will tell us if we stand at a craps table forever, we will break even. When exactly is forever completed? Like the preacher being asked when is Jesus coming, the answer is always at some future unknown date. If we played for an hour, would probability remain true and we break even? How about 2 days? A week? A year? Probability always has short term fluctuations, it's seldom exactly true. Mathematicians have a hard time with this, but will acknowledge it. So as we play at the table, there's times the 7 disappears for 40 rolls, and there's times it appears much more often than 1 out of 6 rolls. Both are fluctuations that will continue as we play. Most people play until they lose and run out of money, which means the casino was able to play through all the fluctuations and walk away when winning. Why not reverse those roles and walk away when your winning and the casino is losing?
Staying with the craps example, would you prefer to take or lay the odds? If the point is 4, taking odds gives you a 33.3% chance to win twice your bet, while laying odds gives you a 66.6% chance to win half your bet. Both are identical statistically. Most people would prefer to take the odds, but I would lay them because there's a better chance a short term fluctuation will swing towards the 66.6% chance of winning. I'm not saying it's a better bet, just my preference.
My point is that the fluctuations are more important than long term probability. In other words, fluctuations in probability are the practical world, while long term probability remaining true is a theoretical world.
Back to baccarat. My system has now won nearly 75% of over 400 shoes. From the Wizard's chart, I still have thousands of hands to play before I can declare it a winning system. To answer your question, you can win a shoe and go home or you can go play another shoe. It doesn't matter when the next shoe is played. I generally play 3 shoes and go home if I won them all. I'll play 5 shoes if 1 of the first 3 shoes were to lose. I play a few days a week at real tables. I don't have much time because of other responsibilities. I do play several shoes on Wizard to continue testing.
And you are the zillionth person who claims he/she can predict when those fluctuations occur. Yet the bac tables keep making money for the house. What's up with that?
Quote: mickeycrimmAnd you are the zillionth person who claims he/she can predict when those fluctuations occur. Yet the bac tables keep making money for the house. What's up with that?
Obviously the casinos employees coolers !
Quote: mickeycrimmAnd you are the zillionth person who claims he/she can predict when those fluctuations occur. Yet the bac tables keep making money for the house. What's up with that?
Where did I say I can predict fluctuations? My point was that those fluctuations will occur every day, but the wizard has many believing in long term probability. It appears that many people are basing their expected outcome on long term probability, but as I've explained, that expected outcome will almost certainly not occur. The preacher tells his flock that Jesus is coming, but never tells them when. The Wizard tells his flock probability will be true in the long run, but never tells them when. It's always some far away, mysterious date sometime in the future.
Why do casinos win, you ask? Well, it's been widely known for about 30 years that blackjack is 100% beatable, yet 99% of people still lose. Likewise, if there were a winning baccarat system, 99% of people would still lose. The public as a whole are complete idiots. Most people can't identify the U.S. on a world map, can't balance their checkbooks, and couldn't win at baccarat if they were allowed to bet after the hand was dealt.
Quote: thecesspitIf the bet is 0 EV, the house will not show an overall profit, regardless of people losing their bankrolls. For each of these, there is an equal number of people winning these bankrolls.
On average. Variance, of course, happens.
You seem to think probability is the rule and variance is the exception. What you're calling variance, I've referred to as fluctuation. We're talking about the same thing. However, probability will very rarely, if ever, remain true or constant while you play. It's highly unlikely for you to live long enough for probability to be true because Michael will always tell you it's some magical date in a far away galaxy where "forever, long-term, and in-the-end" all hang out.
Quote: winbacWhere did I say I can predict fluctuations? My point was that those fluctuations will occur every day, but the wizard has many believing in long term probability. It appears that many people are basing their expected outcome on long term probability, but as I've explained, that expected outcome will almost certainly not occur. The preacher tells his flock that Jesus is coming, but never tells them when. The Wizard tells his flock probability will be true in the long run, but never tells them when. It's always some far away, mysterious date sometime in the future.
Why do casinos win, you ask? Well, it's been widely known for about 30 years that blackjack is 100% beatable, yet 99% of people still lose. Likewise, if there were a winning baccarat system, 99% of people would still lose. The public as a whole are complete idiots. Most people can't identify the U.S. on a world map, can't balance their checkbooks, and couldn't win at baccarat if they were allowed to bet after the hand was dealt.
I'm in the camp that no matter what tactics you use, you can't overcome a negative expectation game. I don't waste my time trying to do such things. Rather, I concentrate on games that offer temporary advantages. I do a lot of tracking of the number of hands, spins, games, but couldn't tell you the exact number on a yearly basis. I personally define the long term as on a yearly basis. I've been at it since October of 1996 and haven't come close to having a losing year. As a matter of fact, on a monthly basis, I'm in my 81st consecutive winning month. I'm not prepared to tell anyone why I don't have losing months anymore. Though I consistently win in the short term, I'm guided by the long term math of the situation.
Though I don't think you are going to beat bac in the long run good luck to you and your system.
Quote: winbacWhere did I say I can predict fluctuations? My point was that those fluctuations will occur every day, but the wizard has many believing in long term probability. It appears that many people are basing their expected outcome on long term probability, but as I've explained, that expected outcome will almost certainly not occur. The preacher tells his flock that Jesus is coming, but never tells them when. The Wizard tells his flock probability will be true in the long run, but never tells them when. It's always some far away, mysterious date sometime in the future.
Why do casinos win, you ask? Well, it's been widely known for about 30 years that blackjack is 100% beatable, yet 99% of people still lose. Likewise, if there were a winning baccarat system, 99% of people would still lose. The public as a whole are complete idiots. Most people can't identify the U.S. on a world map, can't balance their checkbooks, and couldn't win at baccarat if they were allowed to bet after the hand was dealt.
I think your analogy is flawed, but I do like that you're so articulate about it. Religion has its basis in faith and mysticism, almost by definition. Mathematics are factual and provable, again by definition. HUGE, giant, enormous difference. Sure, you as an individual can do well for an indefinite period of time, playing optimal strategy, even without an advantage. Maybe even a lifetime. The long run is most useful as a metric for the casino, not the player, though it's a strong indication of expectation for both. You play x hours/day, y days/year, z years. The casino's dealing the game (effectively) 24/7/365, so their expectation is that the house edge will prevail over the gamut of players. And that's what keeps the lights on and the payroll checks from bouncing.
Otherwise, see Mickey's comments. +1
Quote: beachbumbabsI think your analogy is flawed, but I do like that you're so articulate about it. Religion has its basis in faith and mysticism, almost by definition. Mathematics are factual and provable, again by definition. HUGE, giant, enormous difference. Sure, you as an individual can do well for an indefinite period of time, playing optimal strategy, even without an advantage. Maybe even a lifetime. The long run is most useful as a metric for the casino, not the player, though it's a strong indication of expectation for both. You play x hours/day, y days/year, z years. The casino's dealing the game (effectively) 24/7/365, so their expectation is that the house edge will prevail over the gamut of players. And that's what keeps the lights on and the payroll checks from bouncing.
Otherwise, see Mickey's comments. +1
Mathematics "proved" time travel is possible. When are you taking your trip into tomorrow? Oh, when you get there, could you send me the racing results from Saratoga? Math is wonderful when it stays in the practical world, but theoretical math crosses into the preachers world of mysticism, hocus pocus, and voo doo witches.
You are absolutely correct about long term probability applying to the casino, not the individual gambler. That's the exact point I've continued to make. A positive long term expectation for the casino is not synonymous with a negative long term expectation for the individual gambler. In other words, long term probability for the individual enters the preacher's world and ceases to provide mathematical certainty. Micheal may want to clear this up for his flock because they repeat the "long term probability" and "negative expectation" mantras as if it were gospel.
Another problem is many people apparently believe the mathematical house egde cannot be beat. The casino's edge is only half of the reason long term probability will generate a profit for them. The other half is a maximum bet ceiling set at every casino. If a gambler had an unlimited bankroll and a casino didn't have a bet ceiling, the house edge would be destroyed and the casino would be a sitting duck. So math alone doesn't guarantee the long term positive expectation of the casino. It must be combined with betting limitations.
You state, "...you as an individual can do well for an indefinite period of time...," which seems to contradict Michael's mantra of "all betting systems are worthless." My original post simply asked Michael for a number of shoes (or hands) that a system or gambler must beat to be considered successful. He won't ever answer because he knows providing any number would contradict his statement. Regardless of whatever number he states, the fact there is a number would disprove his use of the word "all." If a gambler were to reach the number, Michael would have to increase the number. It will always have to remain out of reach. Just like a preacher telling us Jesus is coming September 1st, then creating a new date in the far away future when September 1st comes and goes. A good preacher never actually identifies a date, which is why Michael won't identify a number of hands.
Finally, I love the "Mickey's comments +1." You do realize he said he counts spins and defines the long term as a year? Not to pick on Mickey, but I suspect he gets this from Michael's preaching about long term probability. How many others are making decisions based on misunderstanding what long term probability actually means? It's great the Wizard provides all the information, but I'd suggest he explain how it should actually be applied. Why tell people just bet on Banker? Many systems will do better on any given day than just betting on Banker, so why not tell people so they have a chance at winning?
My "worthless" system won again last night at the Palace Station: -229, +189, +198, +225, +58. My friend played at Atlantic City yesterday: +178, +257, +326 using the same system. The total number of shoes is appraching 450 and still winning 74% of them.
Quote: winbacMathematics "proved" time travel is possible. When are you taking your trip into tomorrow? Oh, when you get there, could you send me the racing results from Saratoga? Math is wonderful when it stays in the practical world, but theoretical math crosses into the preachers world of mysticism, hocus pocus, and voo doo witches.
You are absolutely correct about long term probability applying to the casino, not the individual gambler. That's the exact point I've continued to make. A positive long term expectation for the casino is not synonymous with a negative long term expectation for the individual gambler. In other words, long term probability for the individual enters the preacher's world and ceases to provide mathematical certainty. Micheal may want to clear this up for his flock because they repeat the "long term probability" and "negative expectation" mantras as if it were gospel.
Another problem is many people apparently believe the mathematical house egde cannot be beat. The casino's edge is only half of the reason long term probability will generate a profit for them. The other half is a maximum bet ceiling set at every casino. If a gambler had an unlimited bankroll and a casino didn't have a bet ceiling, the house edge would be destroyed and the casino would be a sitting duck. So math alone doesn't guarantee the long term positive expectation of the casino. It must be combined with betting limitations.
You state, "...you as an individual can do well for an indefinite period of time...," which seems to contradict Michael's mantra of "all betting systems are worthless." My original post simply asked Michael for a number of shoes (or hands) that a system or gambler must beat to be considered successful. He won't ever answer because he knows providing any number would contradict his statement. Regardless of whatever number he states, the fact there is a number would disprove his use of the word "all." If a gambler were to reach the number, Michael would have to increase the number. It will always have to remain out of reach. Just like a preacher telling us Jesus is coming September 1st, then creating a new date in the far away future when September 1st comes and goes. A good preacher never actually identifies a date, which is why Michael won't identify a number of hands.
Finally, I love the "Mickey's comments +1." You do realize he said he counts spins and defines the long term as a year? Not to pick on Mickey, but I suspect he gets this from Michael's preaching about long term probability. How many others are making decisions based on misunderstanding what long term probability actually means? It's great the Wizard provides all the information, but I'd suggest he explain how it should actually be applied. Why tell people just bet on Banker? Many systems will do better on any given day than just betting on Banker, so why not tell people so they have a chance at winning?
My "worthless" system won again last night at the Palace Station: -229, +189, +198, +225, +58. My friend played at Atlantic City yesterday: +178, +257, +326 using the same system. The total number of shoes is appraching 450 and still winning 74% of them.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree about this, because your argument is much more about making points off of people than having a conversation; the continued disparaging references to people on here as a "flock" and your misguided mind-reading of what Michael does and why he does it are becoming tiresome. If you had hoped to engage him in this conversation, this is not the way I'd recommend. So, good luck with your system and your condescension, and sayonara.
Quote: winbac
My "worthless" system won again last night at the Palace Station: -229, +189, +198, +225, +58. My friend played at Atlantic City yesterday: +178, +257, +326 using the same system. The total number of shoes is appraching 450 and still winning 74% of them.
You have no proof this is true and even if
it is, what's your point. You apparently have
taught every person you know how to use
your method, why not share it here. There
are many qualified people on the forum who
will tell you if you have something or not. I'm
betting 98% on the 'not'.
Quote: winbacMathematics "proved" time travel is possible. When are you taking your trip into tomorrow? Oh, when you get there, could you send me the racing results from Saratoga? Math is wonderful when it stays in the practical world, but theoretical math crosses into the preachers world of mysticism, hocus pocus, and voo doo witches.
You are absolutely correct about long term probability applying to the casino, not the individual gambler. That's the exact point I've continued to make. A positive long term expectation for the casino is not synonymous with a negative long term expectation for the individual gambler. In other words, long term probability for the individual enters the preacher's world and ceases to provide mathematical certainty. Micheal may want to clear this up for his flock because they repeat the "long term probability" and "negative expectation" mantras as if it were gospel.
Another problem is many people apparently believe the mathematical house egde cannot be beat. The casino's edge is only half of the reason long term probability will generate a profit for them. The other half is a maximum bet ceiling set at every casino. If a gambler had an unlimited bankroll and a casino didn't have a bet ceiling, the house edge would be destroyed and the casino would be a sitting duck. So math alone doesn't guarantee the long term positive expectation of the casino. It must be combined with betting limitations.
You state, "...you as an individual can do well for an indefinite period of time...," which seems to contradict Michael's mantra of "all betting systems are worthless." My original post simply asked Michael for a number of shoes (or hands) that a system or gambler must beat to be considered successful. He won't ever answer because he knows providing any number would contradict his statement. Regardless of whatever number he states, the fact there is a number would disprove his use of the word "all." If a gambler were to reach the number, Michael would have to increase the number. It will always have to remain out of reach. Just like a preacher telling us Jesus is coming September 1st, then creating a new date in the far away future when September 1st comes and goes. A good preacher never actually identifies a date, which is why Michael won't identify a number of hands.
Finally, I love the "Mickey's comments +1." You do realize he said he counts spins and defines the long term as a year? Not to pick on Mickey, but I suspect he gets this from Michael's preaching about long term probability. How many others are making decisions based on misunderstanding what long term probability actually means? It's great the Wizard provides all the information, but I'd suggest he explain how it should actually be applied. Why tell people just bet on Banker? Many systems will do better on any given day than just betting on Banker, so why not tell people so they have a chance at winning?
My "worthless" system won again last night at the Palace Station: -229, +189, +198, +225, +58. My friend played at Atlantic City yesterday: +178, +257, +326 using the same system. The total number of shoes is appraching 450 and still winning 74% of them.
Put your system to a real test. Quit your job, sell off everything you own, and become a full time bac player. The sky is the limit. If your system truly works you will become a multi-millionaire in short order. Just think how foolish you will make us all look when you get back to us bragging about beoming a multi-millionaire through your bac play.
Quote: winbacFinally, I love the "Mickey's comments +1." You do realize he said he counts spins and defines the long term as a year? Not to pick on Mickey, but I suspect he gets this from Michael's preaching about long term probability.
I didn't get it from Michael. I got it from these guys. You are not just disagreeing with us. You are disagreeing with them too.
http://www.fabpedigree.com/james/mathmen.htm
Quote: winbacYou seem to think probability is the rule and variance is the exception.
Not at all, both are important, and both describe quite nicely the behaviour of random systems.
Quote:What you're calling variance, I've referred to as fluctuation. We're talking about the same thing. However, probability will very rarely, if ever, remain true or constant while you play.
Incorrect. The expected value of plays stays the same (more or less, it does vary depending on deck composition in baccarat). The probability is the same for every coin flip.
Quote:It's highly unlikely for you to live long enough for probability to be true because Michael will always tell you it's some magical date in a far away galaxy where "forever, long-term, and in-the-end" all hang out.
The probability is always 'true'. There is no magical date, and the only time I see it claimed there is a 'magical date' are those who don't understand what mathematicians like Mr Shackleford are saying, and want to something different for their own ends.
Truth is, there is no short term or long term. There's just an increasing number of trials, in which the picture sharpens up. You can see it if you track single trials and then 1,000 trials and then 10,000 trials. The patterns predicted by the models of probability emerge. Your bell shaped curves appear, variance models match variance realities. And every system goes along with this just as if it was a random variable, and there are no 'short term patterns' or 'trends' or 'reading the random' or whatever phrases people want to use that break it.
Not that I've seen yet, and I've become less interested in looking for it to break now, because, it's boring now. I've proved to myself that the emergent behaviours from random events work how the models predict, so why keep trying to find an exception... it's like trying to find zero point energy. I'll leave that errand to the overly dedicated.
A) Make sure everybody in the universe, especially including the specific casinos I play in (especially a dingy low-end casino that hardly sees people with actual luggage let alone big-baller baccarat play), knows this as soon as possible; or,
B) Mostly upshut my mouthnay about same, while collecting large piles of small paper portraits of Benjamin Franklin from it.
I dunno, I'm not so good at this whole pit game thing... Mickey, APs, y'all able to advise me what's the best thing to do?
Quote: winbac
As for the Holy Grail, that's still to be determined, which is why I began this conversation by asking about long-term data. Keep in mind I've not said the method works blindly. There are parameters, such as leaving when reaching the win goal. For example, let's say you have a system that breaks even in the long run. Is that a winning system? It sure is, because you can leave when you're ahead. What if you could make the odds bet in craps without having to make a line bet first? Could you win at that consistently? Yes, you sure could. The one big advantage we have over the casino is we decide when to play and when to quit. So the Holy Grail doesn't have to be something that wins blindly.
This is a key post in this thread. He knows
all the system seller buzz words. Holy grail,
leaving when ahead, win goal, big advantage
over casino. This kind of talk is what gets
the low info gamblers salivating and turns
them into customers.
If this guy has a real winning system as he
claims, a public forum is the last place you
want to go with it. So why is he here. He
already knows what the Wiz will say.
Quote: mickeycrimmPut your system to a real test. Quit your job, sell off everything you own, and become a full time bac player. The sky is the limit. If your system truly works you will become a multi-millionaire in short order. Just think how foolish you will make us all look when you get back to us bragging about beoming a multi-millionaire through your bac play.
From the beginning post, I've consistently stated that my system is winning and would like to continue to test it. Recall my first and only question was how long? How many shoes / hands? It was an honest question. Unfortunately, I received many responses based on long term probablity and expected outcomes for an individual gambler. So I tried several times to explain that long term probability doesn't apply to the individual gambler. Only the casino can rely on the long term.
I didn't intend to make anyone look foolish, nor was my intent to brag about winning. Should my system succeed, I'll tell anyone who wants to play and win. My concern right now is I'm not sure it's a long term winning system, but it might be with the results I'm getting. If I were to tell everyone now, sure enough there will be people claiming they lost without ever actually playing. That would only confuse the real results and make it impossible to know the real results over time. So for now, I have a few people testing it along with me. I can trust them to give me accurate results, whether it's good or bad.
However, if people continue to believe that long term probability is always true for the individual, then there's no way you'll accept or understand my system. This is where the Wizard can help by explaining the differences between the casino and the individual. Without trying to speak for him, I suspect he will agree that long term probability for the individual rarely, if ever, remains true. The individual gambler plays in the short term, while the casino plays in the long term.
Therefore, the individual is nearly always betting into some type of variance to probability.
How many variances can there be in baccarat? If Banker wins more often than normal in a particular shoe, a system that bets only Banker would win. Also, a system that follows the last bet would win, follow 2nd to last would win, bet Banker after Player would win. Lots of systems would win this shoe. What if Player won more often? There would be a list of systems that beat that shoe. What if chop patterns were more frequent? Another list of systems would beat that shoe. Makes sense, right? Okay, now what if you had a system that wins against all those shoes? In other words, a system that beat as many of the variances as possible. My system does beat most of the variances, and I cut my losses at the shoes that have the one variance it doesn't beat. What's the likelihood the next shoe has that same variance? Without starting an argument over how many variances there are, I've identified 4 that seem to happen quite frequently. I'll win against 3 of them. The percentage of shoes I've won has consistenly ranged from 71% - 76%. So that's 3 out of 4 of the common variances. Is it a coincidence? It's a serious question, one I think is worth exploring.
These variances produce patterns. Obviously if Banker wins 55 hands in a shoe, there will be some long Banker streaks. If you can identify the type of variance, you can attempt to project the type of pattern it will produce and bet accordingly. Have you ever seen a long Banker streak and thought to yourself how nice it would be if you were in on it from the beginning? That's what I attempt to do, identify the variance (I call it fluctuation in earlier posts) and project the possible patterns it can produce. Then I have a betting strategy to win against all those possible patterns. I won't be right every time, far from it. But being wrong costs me 3 units, while being right generates many consecutive units. If I'm right once, I'll hit my +5 goal and leave the shoe.
Quote: winbacIf I'm right once, I'll hit my +5 goal and leave the shoe.
Ignoring everything else you said in
that lonnnng post, this last sentence
is a glaring rookie mistake.
Having a win goal because of time or
money constraints is one thing. Having
one because you think it's part of your
methods winning strategy is completely
wrong. You're dealing with random
outcomes, it makes no difference if
you stop at +5 or stop after 10 hours
of play.
This is why the BJ experts tell you to play
as long and often as you can if you're
counting cards. The same rule applies
to bac if you have an edge, stopping when
ahead is just shooting yourself in the foot.
The game will take right up where you
left it next time you play, if it's an hour
later or a year later. Because you're dealing
with random outcomes.
Quote: beachbumbabsI think we're going to have to agree to disagree about this, because your argument is much more about making points off of people than having a conversation; the continued disparaging references to people on here as a "flock" and your misguided mind-reading of what Michael does and why he does it are becoming tiresome. If you had hoped to engage him in this conversation, this is not the way I'd recommend. So, good luck with your system and your condescension, and sayonara.
I'm not sure what "points" I've attempted to make other than explaining long term probability as it applies to an individual. But it's your forum, so as you wish. Take care and may everyone's next bet be a winner.
Quote: winbacI'm not sure what "points" I've attempted to make other than explaining long term probability as it applies to an individual. But it's your forum, so as you wish. Take care and may everyone's next bet be a winner.
I meant that I was done trying to discuss this with you. It's up to you whether you stay.
Quote: winbacFrom the beginning post, I've consistently stated that my system is winning and would like to continue to test it. Recall my first and only question was how long? How many shoes / hands? It was an honest question. Unfortunately, I received many responses based on long term probablity and expected outcomes for an individual gambler. So I tried several times to explain that long term probability doesn't apply to the individual gambler. Only the casino can rely on the long term.
Oh, but it does. The probability applies to every hand played. The variance around the expected results is much larger and 'fuzzier' with a few hands. That is all. There's no magical way to play just 'in the short term'. The long term is a just a group of short term results stacked end to end. Or the short term is just a small slice of the long term.
Quote:
These variances produce patterns. Obviously if Banker wins 55 hands in a shoe, there will be some long Banker streaks. If you can identify the type of variance, you can attempt to project the type of pattern it will produce and bet accordingly. Have you ever seen a long Banker streak and thought to yourself how nice it would be if you were in on it from the beginning? That's what I attempt to do, identify the variance (I call it fluctuation in earlier posts) and project the possible patterns it can produce. Then I have a betting strategy to win against all those possible patterns. I won't be right every time, far from it. But being wrong costs me 3 units, while being right generates many consecutive units. If I'm right once, I'll hit my +5 goal and leave the shoe.
Variance, as I was using it, has a specific mathematical meaning. The way you are using it (or fluctuations) is not the same.
'Identifying the type of variance'? So you suggest that if the show plays one way to start, it must continue to play that way for the rest of the shoe? Predict the patterns? The whole point is this.... if the events are random, there is no correlation between the next event and the previous events. If you believe this is not true, then you believe the shoe is not random, and thus making comments about long and short term expectations are not using standard probability models... and hence meaningless. You can't have it both ways!
Twelve month summary for statewide (Nevada) Baccarat revenue is $1,610,018,000 from 6/1/2013 to 5/31/2014 on 309 tables (5.2 million dollars per table per year)
Next highest was blackjack at $1,084,021,000 on 2697 tables (about $400,000 per table per year)
Next highest was craps at $373,922,000 on 382 tables (about a million dollars per table per year).
Yeah. A baccarat table is the breadwinner on a per table basis, at least here in Nevada!
Quote: thecesspitOr the short term is just a small slice of the long term.
Yes. The long term doesn't apply to players, you'll
never live long enough to be in the real long term.
The game of bac is in the long term because
thousands of shoes are being dealt worldwide at
all times. It's one giant endless game.
If you don't believe it, got to a casino with a bunch
of bac tables. Write down the outcomes as they
come out and play your method, whatever it is.
Go to another table and continue playing, using
the outcomes from the previous table. You will
not notice a difference in your game at all because
you're dealing with random results. Random is random.
If you bet banker at the same amount n times in a row, each time you do that, you have a smaller and smaller chance of coming out ahead.
When n is sufficiently large, your chance of being ahead is negligible.
If you can understand this part, maybe it will help.
Changing your bet amount or what you bet gives you a chance to subvert this effect by inserting additional randomness. But flat betting the same bet over and over for just about any game will reveal the edge for a certain number of events. That number of events is related to the house edge. Higher house edge means your chance to come out ahead disappears more quickly.
But in every game, it will eventually disappear.
Your ability to win in the short term is the experience they are selling.
Most people who win, give up their good fortune by repeating the method in which they were successful thinking that it will happen again.
Quote: EvenBobYou have no proof this is true and even if
it is, what's your point. You apparently have
taught every person you know how to use
your method, why not share it here. There
are many qualified people on the forum who
will tell you if you have something or not. I'm
betting 98% on the 'not'.
Why hello there, Bob.
Quote: AhighYour ability to win in the short term is the experience they are selling.
Most people who win, give up their good fortune by repeating the method in which they were successful thinking that it will happen again.
That's it in a nutshell. You see it over and
over. It's like the guy who finds a $20 bill
in a store parking lot and from then on he
checks that lot for more $20 bills because
he fails to understand how random events
work.
But well enunciated.
So for bacarrat, of course, it's possible to go through 10,000 sample sessions and come out ahead, even after commission. The same is true for crap, blackjack, even the worst games like Caribbean Stud and Four Card.
It is proven that the best bet at Baccarat is Banker. You will lose the least amount of money playing that bet over the long term. It also means that that the most LIKELY outcome is that you will lose whatever number of hands you play x the House Advantage per play x the amount bet divided to the nearest unit. There are other outcomes that are possible on both sides of that bell hand, from losing EVERY hand in the set to winning EVERY hand in the set. All of these probabilities can be calculated, and you will land in one of the buckets.
