Flat bets on Baccarat
Just for a laugh I even played 6 shoes on the bac game on this site, I finished up ahead on five of the six shoes.
It is a nice piece of software, the flow of the game seems identical to real casino play.
Quote: AxelWolf(assuming Randi isn't out hunting down Teller of Penn & Teller for exposing the milk can escape on The Simpsons)?
Sounds interesting.
More Details please.
The Simpsons episode (from season 22) "The Great Simpsina" deals with Lisa being taught how to do the milk can escape, only to tell her new boyfriend, who ends up being the son of a rival magician. The credits say, "Magic Consultant: Teller", which is why I blame Teller for the exposing.
Quote: SonuvabishI'm so jealous of you. Please, tell us more about randomly picking a side to flat bet on....and how the casino is so stupid to let you write down the amount of times each side has won.
Er, Nevada Gaming Regulation 5.150(1)(a) lets anyone "make and refer to handwritten records of the cards played at baccarat."
Quote: TheProfessorEverything I have posted is factual
No, it isn't
Quote: TheProfessorif you actually met me...you would feel so silly.
Yes, I would...for agreeing to meet you
Quote: TheProfessor
I even played 6 shoes on the bac game on this site, I finished up ahead on five of the six shoes.
No, you didn't
Quote: TheProfessor
the flow of the game seems identical to real casino play.
If I was married, I'd beat my wife after reading this garbage.
Quote: SonuvabishI'm so jealous of you. Please, tell us more about randomly picking a side to flat bet on....and how the casino is so stupid to let you write down the amount of times each side has won.
Will a friggin mod check if they are the same account please?
I haven't been friggin' lately, but I have checked several times in the last week or so, and there is no apparent intersection between accounts.
Quote: beachbumbabsI haven't been friggin' lately, but I have checked several times in the last week or so, and there is no apparent intersection between accounts.
That's what JB said. Proxy I bet. LOL the one dude was shocked at how mathematically impossible professor's statements are....if anything he said were true, he'd have been kicked out as a suspected cheat. The math says so.
Quote: beachbumbabsI haven't been friggin' lately,
Was that a dance from the UK in
the 60's?
Quote: beachbumbabsI haven't been friggin' lately, but I have checked several times in the last week or so, and there is no apparent intersection between accounts.
Am I allowed to hijack a thread in the free speech zone and say WHATEVER i want, so long as it doesn't violate an actual LAW, as opposed to forum rule?
Quote: SonuvabishAm I allowed to hijack a thread in the free speech zone and say WHATEVER i want, so long as it doesn't violate an actual LAW, as opposed to forum rule?
I answered this there, where you also posted, but in addition I think you should start your own thread, not hijack someone else's on purpose.
Quote: beachbumbabsI answered this there, where you also posted, but in addition I think you should start your own thread, not hijack someone else's on purpose.
It is closed to new threads, cant start new ones.
So far I have encountered a lot of mathematical geniuses spewing toxic vitriol on all the reasons why you can't win.
Of course you can f...... win, I've been doing it for over three decades.
Why don't you do me a favour, go and start a thread somewhere else where you can drown in your own little sea of negativity
and leave this thread for people who can actually win and would like to discuss their experiences.
Quote: TheProfessorI opened this thread hoping to find someone out there with a lot of experience at playing baccarat and winning consistently.
So far I have encountered a lot of mathematical geniuses spewing toxic vitriol on all the reasons why you can't win.
Of course you can f...... win, I've been doing it for over three decades.
Why don't you do me a favour, go and start a thread somewhere else where you can drown in your own little sea of negativity
and leave this thread for people who can actually win and would like to discuss their experiences.
I think you may have come to the wrong place...
Quote: TheProfessorI opened this thread hoping to find someone out there with a lot of experience at playing baccarat and winning consistently.
So far I have encountered a lot of mathematical geniuses spewing toxic vitriol on all the reasons why you can't win.
Of course you can f...... win, I've been doing it for over three decades.
Why don't you do me a favour, go and start a thread somewhere else where you can drown in your own little sea of negativity
and leave this thread for people who can actually win and would like to discuss their experiences.
Professor wants me to drown! I think he meant Sea of Tranquility, which is not a body of water. Death threat, 30 days!
If you give me 1/1000 of your multi-multi bazillion dollar BR, I will consider that sufficient proof.
Quote: darkozNot really. It's kind of like the horrible singers on American Idol. You know they are going to lambasted and the fun is watching.
In this case, we get to join in.
I think you hit the nail on the head here. It's like car crash forum TV. If no one bit on these threads, they wouldn't keep coming back.
I, for one, am happy to see them perpetuate the myth that Baccarat can be beaten with their 'systems'.
Quote: DicePhDI thought id try and weigh in but first, can you tell me at what level you understand martingale theory? And no I don't mean the 'strategy' of doubling bets after losses. I'm talking about the stochastic processes definition.
Second, there is indeed a difference between the laws of probability and the gamblers fallacy. It is not clear to me that you understand the subtleties.
I'm trying to have the intellectual discourse you want professor, but I remain in waiting for your answers.
Quote: DicePhDI'm trying to have the intellectual discourse you want professor, but I remain in waiting for your answers.
He clearly does not know the difference between the two. He bets P if B has more wins than the other, because he thinks the law of probability will put them in balance.
Unfortunately no one beats Baccarat constantly unless they are using a proven method like edge sorting.Quote: TheProfessorI opened this thread hoping to find someone out there with a lot of experience at playing baccarat and winning consistently.
So far I have encountered a lot of mathematical geniuses spewing toxic vitriol on all the reasons why you can't win.
Of course you can f...... win, I've been doing it for over three decades.
Why don't you do me a favour, go and start a thread somewhere else where you can drown in your own little sea of negativity
and leave this thread for people who can actually win and would like to discuss their experiences.
As someone pointed out you are on the wrong forum. What you are claiming is the opposite of what this forum is supposed to be about.
If you want any type of respect or believability. Prove any of your wild stories. Show you are different from all the other all talk basement baccarat players. Just read a few baccarat system threads (I bet you know them well) and you will find that most of them have found themselves unwelcome by most
Quote: AxelWolf
If you want any type of respect or believability. Prove any of your wild stories.
I still wouldn't respect him. Don't give him any glimmer of hope...he'll just start proving his system again by not offering any proof. I use this chaos-based X-ray random-strategy that I learned when aliens abducted me...little green men, not latinos.
Quote: DicePhDI'm trying to have the intellectual discourse you want professor, but I remain in waiting for your answers.
Now we are getting somewhere, I am not a mathematician and know nothing about stochastic processes definition but would love to learn.
I am also interested to know the difference between the law of probability and the gamblers fallacy.
I am not sure why it is I win so many of my bets, but after 3000 hours of play I was hoping it was more than just luck.
Also I notice it is a tiny bit easier to win more often on the bac game on this site than at the caz I play in, I presume that's because of the
5% commission versus the banker six rule. Anyway I am all ears.
Quote: TheProfessorNow we are getting somewhere, I am not a mathematician and know nothing about stochastic processes definition but would love to learn.
I am also interested to know the difference between the law of probability and the gamblers fallacy.
I am not sure why it is I win so many of my bets, but after 3000 hours of play I was hoping it was more than just luck.
Also I notice it is a tiny bit easier to win more often on the bac game on this site than at the caz I play in, I presume that's because of the
5% commission versus the banker six rule. Anyway I am all ears.
You've been playing everyday for 10 years, and this amounts to 3000 hours? Another one of those 'facts?" LOL
The law of probability states you cannot beat the house.
Gambler's fallacy is why you think you can beat the house using the law of probability.
Quote: SonuvabishYou've been playing everyday for 10 years, and this amounts to 3000 hours? Another one of those 'facts?" LOL
The law of probability states you cannot beat the house.
Gambler's fallacy is why you think you can beat the house using the law of probability.
Make that 30 plus years young fella.
Quote: TheProfessorMake that 30 plus years young fella.
You play less then 20 minutes a day? That seems incredibly short. Even at 10 years you'd only be playing less then an hour. Pretty close to 45 minutes actually. Seems an incredibly short amount of time to play but whatever.
Also you give yourself an erudite sounding name like the professor and you have no idea how or why what you are doing will work or even the most rudimentary understanding of the mathematics of the game you are playing. Seems a bit pretentious.
Quote: SonuvabishYou've been playing everyday for 10 years, and this amounts to 3000 hours? Another one of those 'facts?" LOL
The law of probability states you cannot beat the house.
Gambler's fallacy is why you think you can beat the house using the law of probability.
I have no idea what the 'law of probability' is. Probability doesn't say you cannot beat the house. It says, the more you play a negative expectation game, the more likely you are to have a overall loss. It will approach 100%, but never quite reach it.
The Gambler's Fallacy is mis-using the 'law of large numbers', which isn't really a 'law' but an emergent behaviour from a random sequence.
Quote: TheProfessorMake that 30 plus years young fella.
LOL...so then that number is that more inaccurate. You missed the entire point, no surprise.
Quote: Twirdman
yourself an erudite sounding name like the professor and you have no idea how or why what you are doing will work or even the most rudimentary understanding of the mathematics of the game you are playing. Seems a bit pretentious.
LOL
Quote: thecesspitProbability doesn't say you cannot beat the house.
It does in his case.
Quote: thecesspit
The Gambler's Fallacy is mis-using the 'law of large numbers', which isn't really a 'law' but an emergent behaviour from a random sequence.
I don't think that's necessarily true. It's breaking it down into smaller samples and corresponding samples to even it out.
Quote: TwirdmanYou play less then 20 minutes a day? That seems incredibly short. Even at 10 years you'd only be playing less then an hour. Pretty close to 45 minutes actually. Seems an incredibly short amount of time to play but whatever.
Also you give yourself an erudite sounding name like the professor and you have no idea how or why what you are doing will work or even the most rudimentary understanding of the mathematics of the game you are playing. Seems a bit pretentious.
Where did you get the 20 minutes from?
I play for three or four hours a day.
I certainly did not choose the name Professor, it is a nickname given to me by the other patrons at the casino
where I play, so blame them!
You are right I do not know exactly why what I do works but I obviously know it works.
And I do know precisely what all the odds are of all the casino games, you underestimate my intelligence.
Quote: TheProfessorWhere did you get the 20 minutes from?
I play for three or four hours a day.
I certainly did not choose the name Professor, it is a nickname given to me by the other patrons at the casino
where I play, so blame them!
You are right I do not know exactly why what I do works but I obviously know it works.
And I do know precisely what all the odds are of all the casino games, you underestimate my intelligence.
They got 20 minutes from using arithmetic.
How did you arrive at multi-multi millions? Randomly picked a number? Random is your whole philosophy, after-all.
Quote: TheProfessorWhere did you get the 20 minutes from?
I play for three or four hours a day.
I certainly did not choose the name Professor, it is a nickname given to me by the other patrons at the casino
where I play, so blame them!
You are right I do not know exactly why what I do works but I obviously know it works.
And I do know precisely what all the odds are of all the casino games, you underestimate my intelligence.
The professor cannot even multiply? Say you play 10 years and you said you play almost every day. Just to be generous to you lets say "almost every day" means 300 days so 6 days a week keeping the Sabbath holy or something. This translates to 3000 days and at an hour a day that is 3000 hours. You say you've played 30 years again at 300 days a year that is 9000 days or 1/3 of an hour or 20 minutes per day.
Quote: TwirdmanThe professor cannot even multiply? Say you play 10 years and you said you play almost every day. Just to be generous to you lets say "almost every day" means 300 days so 6 days a week keeping the Sabbath holy or something. This translates to 3000 days and at an hour a day that is 3000 hours. You say you've played 30 years again at 300 days a year that is 9000 days or 1/3 of an hour or 20 minutes per day.
LOL...no he still hasn't picked up on it, I pointed it out to him a page ago. He is off by about 50,000 hours (he claims 3000 hours), and we're supposed to think his other numerical claims are credible?
Quote: TwirdmanThe professor cannot even multiply? Say you play 10 years and you said you play almost every day. Just to be generous to you lets say "almost every day" means 300 days so 6 days a week keeping the Sabbath holy or something. This translates to 3000 days and at an hour a day that is 3000 hours. You say you've played 30 years again at 300 days a year that is 9000 days or 1/3 of an hour or 20 minutes per day.
Sorry if I have not been precise enough for you.
I have played for 30 plus years.
I play most days when I am not on holiday or cruising around on my 53 boat.
when I play I play for about three or four hours most of the time.
Would you like to know what I had for breakfast?
Quote: TheProfessorSorry if I have not been precise enough for you.
I have played for 30 plus years.
I play most days when I am not on holiday or cruising around on my 53 boat.
when I play I play for about three or four hours most of the time.
Would you like to know what I had for breakfast?
So your answer of 3000 hours stands?
Quote: SonuvabishSo your answer of 3000 hours stands?
Yes, concentrated mostly towards the last few years.
Enough of this, I am off to win some more money!!
Quote: TheProfessorYes, concentrated mostly towards the last few years.
Enough of this, I am off to win some more money!!
Well, fortunately, it is possible to be up after only 3000 hours of play.
Unfortunately, your claims are still impossible.
Further, if you play 3-4 hours, but have only 3000 in the last few years (what happened to 30?), you can't play anywhere close to everyday.
Quote: SonuvabishDoes anyone think theprofessor/letwin might be AOC trolling the site?
I'd be 90%+ sure they're the same person or in some form of coercion with one another.
Quote: TheProfessorI opened this thread hoping to find someone out there with a lot of experience at playing baccarat and winning consistently.
So far I have encountered a lot of mathematical geniuses spewing toxic vitriol on all the reasons why you can't win.
Of course you can f...... win, I've been doing it for over three decades.
Why don't you do me a favour, go and start a thread somewhere else where you can drown in your own little sea of negativity
and leave this thread for people who can actually win and would like to discuss their experiences.
So by your own words you opened this thread trying to find 'anyone' else that's consistently won at Baccarat... and so far you've found NONE? Well gee, according to those "mathematical geniuses" that's precisely what they would have predicted?
If you can win every time, why not video yourself winning for a few hour session? Oh, just like "letswin" I bet the response is "I have nothing to prove!" Yet you sit there and try to argue against math and logic that it's TOTALLY plausible, AND EASY!
Either put up, or shut up. That's my opinion.
Quote: letswinPersonally, if you can win consistently flat betting? You have beaten the game.
I wouldn't say you have beaten the game but if you figure out a flat betting methodology you will be pretty amazed of what you can hash out in a short period of time per shoe.
Quote: TheProfessorNow we are getting somewhere, I am not a mathematician and know nothing about stochastic processes definition but would love to learn.
I am also interested to know the difference between the law of probability and the gamblers fallacy.
I am not sure why it is I win so many of my bets, but after 3000 hours of play I was hoping it was more than just luck.
Also I notice it is a tiny bit easier to win more often on the bac game on this site than at the caz I play in, I presume that's because of the
5% commission versus the banker six rule. Anyway I am all ears.
It's certainly fine that you do not know about stochastic processes, but what you seem to be confused about (most critically anyway), is that in your mind the law of probability is identical to what others are calling a fallacy.
Loosely speaking, the law of probability governs the limiting case of a probabilistic system. We are talking long-term convergence here. Basically if you think of a "0" as a heads and a "1" as a tails of a fair coin, what you are noting is that, ultimately, as the number of tosses tends towards infinity, it is true that the proportion of 0s and 1s will converge to their probabilities. Fair enough, no one is disputing that. It's important to note that limiting convergence perfectly allows for short-term deviations from fair probabilities. What you are not understanding, in my estimation, is that when you compare with infinity, anything is relatively short-term.
Now, the gambler's fallacy is that, behaviorally, people tend to misunderstand perfectly random sequences. In the fair coin example, the gambler's fallacy says that people observe a random sequence of 0010001000100000 and believe that the next outcome is more likely to be a "1". This "next outcome" can be thought of as a conditional probability, I/e the probability of tails on the 16th flip "given" that the first 15 flips were the sequence above.
You walk around a casino and see the roulette display with all the previous spins. This is a genius invention, as it capitalizes on this fallacy. Here is how it works, and for now just simplify the wheel so that red and black are literally 50/50. I know this isn't the case, but to make it quicker to explain.
A string of black numbers of length, say, 12 shows up on the display. Suddenly people come out of the woodwork to bet on red. The question they ask themselves is "my god, what is the probability of 13 black numbers in a row?!" and they are right that it is very very tiny. (1/2)^13 roughly. But this is the wrong question. The true question should be "what is the probability of black on the 13th spin, "given" that the first 12 were all black. This is where Martingales come in. Again, being loose with language, a martingale is a process whose conditional probabilities do not depend on the full history of outcomes prior to the current time.
Flat betting on red causes your bankroll to evolve as a martingale, loosely. For me to predict the value of your bankroll after 13 spins, or to predict the probability of the 13th outcome, I don't need to know the history of outcomes. Essentially, the probability of black on the 13th roll is 1/2 whether or not the previous 1, 2 or 50,000 spins were black.
I am not a Bac player, but from this thread and others I understand that the game evolves in a similar fashion... unlike blackjack where the previous cards can alter the probabilities of winning.
When you see a string of banker or player wins, you are postulating that the chances of the other outcome are altered, but this is not true. PBBPPBBBBBBBBB or similarly "skewed" histories do not make "P" more likely on the next outcome. Believing that they do is gamblers fallacy, plain and simple, NOT the law of probabilities.
Ultimately (and that is a concept beyond the pattern recognition that human brains have evolved to incorporate into everything), the percentages of Ps and B's will converge appropriately. To believe that they must (or will) for any horizon shorter than that is not guaranteed.
Your post is the first one that even comes close to an intelligent discussion on the matter.
Yes because itsnhart to have an intelligent conversation with someone who os discussing a unintelligent system. How can you have an intelligent conversation with an insane theory? Ever try arguing with a 6 year old who believes they are right about something? LOTS OF CANDY IS GOOD FOR ME BEFORE BED.Quote: TheProfessor
Your post is the first one that even comes close to an intelligent discussion on the matter.
Quote: TheProfessor
Your post is the first one that even comes close to an intelligent discussion on the matter.
He spent half a page talking about one of the most basic concepts of middle school math that I ever learned, in an effort to help those who may or may not be mentally feeble. 6th grade math concepts are intelligent discussion? I hope your erotic interests are a bit more mature than your intellectual ones, if ya know what I mean.
Quote: TheProfessorYour post is the first one that even comes close to an intelligent discussion on the matter.
I am offended by this statement. You are not a very nice person.
Quote: dwheatleyI am offended by this statement. You are not a very nice person.
I am also offended. Why is he allowed to personally insult everyone?
Quote: letswinThis is the problem with methods that have not been thoroughly tested properly. Like I said in my thread, the cards can be misleading for a long long time. But, tested up against a simulation? Your method will face all of the odds and all the possible combinations for each hand and the house edge much much sooner. Stop wasting money in the casino until you thoroughly test your method out with a simulation!
ANYONE HERE KNOW LETS WIN OR STILL IN CONTACT WITH HIM? AFTER EVERY SINGLE COMMENTS & THREADS HE POSTED HERE I REALISED HE MAKES SENSE AND HAS GIVEN ME HOPE WITH BACCARAT. IN FACT, I HAVE COPY PASTED EVERYTHING HE POSTS HERE AND HAVE SAVED IT MY COMPUTER. I HAVE READ THEM ALL THOROUGHLY AND EVEN TRIED ATTEMPTING TO FIND A WAY HOW HE DID IT BUT STILL HAVE NOT SUCCEEDED. I KNOW THERE'S A WAY AS I ABSOLUTELY COMPREHEND HIS MESSAGES POSTED IN THIS FORUM. I READ EACH AND EVERYONE OF THEM OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
I WENT TO CHECK HIS PROFILE BUT HE IS NO LONGER HERE. HIS LAST VISIT TO THIS FORUM WAS 2016. DAMN IF ONLY I FOUND THIS FORUM IN 2016!
