The Adventures of MDawg

Quote: Wellbush

I might do that. Holyfield is one guy i would put up with the best heavyweights ever. I would say the same for Tyson, but only for the initial part of Tyson's career. During that period, Tyson must have been one of the most explosive heavyweights ever.

The Dokes-Holyfield fight was supposed to be for the #1 contender spot. After Holyfields win, Don King decided that Dokes had done enough in the fight to establish himself as the #1 contender, even though he lost. Dokes never did fight Tyson as King didn't want to pay him what he thought he was worth. Holyfield eventually won the title and had two now notorious fights with Tyson.

I believe I noticed Don King standing around in the ring after the Ali Frazier 3 fight. Maybe also after the Ali Foreman.

Quote: MDawg

Obviously it's not good to be the casino, when MDawg is in the House. Or at least, that is how it has been, for some years now.

Haha. I imagine that you were a good dodgeball player in high school. ;)

Quote: billryan

The Dokes-Holyfield fight was supposed to be for the #1 contender spot. After Holyfields win, Don King decided that Dokes had done enough in the fight to establish himself as the #1 contender, even though he lost. Dokes never did fight Tyson as King didn't want to pay him what he thought he was worth. Holyfield eventually won the title and had two now notorious fights with Tyson.

I just watched the Dokes v Holyfield fight. A ripper fight alright!

Day 48 play

Pulled a pretty big marker to start. Some heavy hitting up to 15k a hand but the big hands pretty much cancelled each other out this session. Eventually settled to a lot of smaller hands and walked with +3000.

Average bet 1200.

Comps are verging on the unlimited side at this point, at least every conceivable RFB / spa / salon is being taken care of.

+3000

Note: Lately, for security reasons, session reports are not necessarily presented in real time corresponding directly to the day played.



I'm willing to present a side Challenge. If anyone doubts that any one, just any one of the Session reports I present during this trip is not entirely accurate, throw down a red flag! Put up a mere ten grand in cash, let's work out how to verify the Session to your satisfaction using the Wizard as the judge, and winner takes the twenty thousand.

I'll contribute five hundred from my end for the Wizard's time if the Challenger will do the same, so that's a net $19,000. to the winner of this side Challenge.

This Side Challenge remains good for the duration of this particular Vegas trip.

Quote: billryan

Nobody goes to Vegas anymore. It's too crowded.

Vegas is definitely coming alive. Crowds. Masks optional. Scantily clad interesting girls galore. None compares to the wife but just having eye candy around seems lucky to me.

I have a theory that every time you see a girl on the casino floor with a hot behind it translates to a win at the tables. Then again, I've been winning most sessions and there have been a lot of hot girls.

At a recent session a family of three sat down, mother, father and daughter. Daughter joked that she was 14, and she actually looked it, but was obviously over 21 as they checked her ID. She looked like somewhere between Jodie Foster in Taxi Driver and Sissy Spacek in Badlands, but I couldn't really say that because Ma and Pa were present. Not that she would have necessarily gotten it, but I am sure they would have.

I kept joking with Pops, who would occasionally lay out the nice stack of 500 chips, that he bet only on "high probability hands," but I was just buttering him up because he lost most of his bets.

Somehow, at the end, he repaid the marker he had pulled for them, minus a few grand he said he pulled from his pocket. What saved them were mom's bets: "She's better at money management than you are, obviously," I couldn't resist saying to ol' Dad.

"She's a lot better at everything, actually," was what he came back with as they were leaving.

I wonder if it's possible to design an experiment that could prove someone wins at the casino, using just bet-size variation?

Quote: Wellbush

I wonder if it's possible to design an experiment that could prove someone wins at the casino, using just bet-size variation?

It is. Those are called simulations. The simulations prove that, over enough time, the players do not win.

Quote: Mission146

It is. Those are called simulations. The simulations prove that, over enough time, the players do not win.

but what if it's someone like MD, who claims, and has shown, he can win? i mean, the wiz saw him do it. And the wiz confirmed MD played the way he always says he does. MD can also show 'certain' people his financial records at the casinos, if he chooses to. is that proof enough?

in this case, the simulations are on shaky ground, are they not? otherwise we're stating that both can exist - someone who wins by varying bet-size, and simulations that say he can't!

Quote: Wellbush

but what if it's someone like MD, who claims, and has shown, he can win? i mean, the wiz saw him do it. although it was a one-off, MD can show 'certain' people his financial records at the casinos. is that proof enough?

in this case, the simulations you're talking about are on shaky ground, are they not? otherwise you're stating that both can exist - someone who wins by varying bet-size, and simulations that say he loses!

There are a few things at play:

1.) The simulations are not going to factor in comps, loss rebates or anything else that might change the overall expectation of the play. You could program a simulation that does that to some extent (as Teliot has for hole-carding simulations on various things), but if you're only talking about a strategy based on varying bets (and nothing else) then the simulation is only going to be based on the game.

2.) The operative term I used is, "Over enough time." If we assume that there is nothing Mdawg is doing outside of the game on the table that might swing the overall proposition in his favor, (and he has mentioned at least one thing that swings it at least towards him already) then it's not impossible that he is winning to this point.

What will happen in the simulations is that the one who lasts the longest might take 1,000,000 hands/attempts before they go underwater and never look back. That simulation could conceivably happen to a real person, so even playing at a negative expectation, it's possible for a person to be ahead for a very, very long time.

That's the thing with our discussions---you seem to think that I deny that fact. I do not.

If you look at our Powerball lottery, for example, that has a House Edge of more than 50%, but the top jackpot is a ridiculously huge number. Someone who buys one ticket per drawing, and wins, would never live long enough to be underwater if they continued to only buy one ticket per drawing. So, about half of simulated players would go underwater after the first ticket and never be profitable after...but some simulated players would win once, twice or maybe even three times and have to buy hundreds of millions (maybe more) tickets before they go underwater, or go underwater again.

3.) The point is that someone can win. The expectation is that the person will eventually lose, and with enough time playing with a House Edge against, a person would. However, there are some players (even on negative expectation games) who might get on the far right side of the bell curve and simply never play enough that the expected loss/house edge/expected results---ever catch up to them.

Check this out for an example:

http://www.beatingbonuses.com/simulator.htm

Okay, so the first one I did had these parameters:

Game: Single-Zero Roulette (2.7% House Edge)
Starting Bankroll: $1,000
Bet Amount: $5
Total Bet: $20,000 (4,000 bets)
Number of Players: 10,000

After these 10,000 players each made 4,000 bets, 4.29% (429 players) were ahead and only 10.03% (1,003 players) had lost the entire $1,000 they had to start. The mean average amount lost was almost $530, but nearly 90% of players were either ahead or at least still alive.

I'm now going to keep everything the same, except they must do 8,000 spins ($40,000 total):

Okay, now only 0.79% of players (79 players) are ahead, 64.76% (6,476) have lost the $1,000 they had to start and the mean average amount lost is about $864. One player is actually UP over $900, so that player will last awhile.

Let's skip ahead and go to 20,000 spins ($100,000 in total bets)

At this point and based on one simulation, 99.58% (9,958) of our friends have busted and only one player is ahead. The average amount lost is north of $998 and our single player who is ahead is up $40.

20,000 spins, can you imagine how many hours at the Roulette table that would be? I can. Several hundred.

So, why wouldn't that player think that he/she is on to something if they didn't know any better?

And, that was all with flat-betting a game with a 2.7% House Edge. We're talking about a game with a lower House Edge and varying the bet amounts that will redistribute sets of results, were it a simulation.

If I go to 25,000 spins ($125,000 in bets) then nobody is ahead after that. In fact, only four players have failed to lose the full $1,000 the one time I had it do that.

And that's why I say: If you could play long enough, you would lose.

The average player will lose. Most players will lose. The expectation is losing. If you add and subtract the results of every single player to ever play the game in history (without any AP tactics) and divide that by the total amount bet, the result will be exactly the house edge of the game probably to at least the tenth decimal place.

That's why I usually don't argue with people when they report their purported real-world results. I wouldn't go as far as to say anything is possible, but given how much a player could feasibly even play in his/her life, almost anything is.

And, in the short-term, the more total hands you have played---the more weird low-probability (within a certain number of hands) stuff you will see.

Somewhere out there is a video poker player who has gotten dealt quads back to back---and probably nobody believes him. Hell, maybe he's not even THAT sure it happened, at this point. It's only seventeen-something million to one against, though, and I am quite positive that enough hands of video poker have been played throughout the course of human events that this was expected to happen quite a few times.

Or, maybe it hasn't happened yet, despite expectation.

While “still in his twenties Nicolas Zographos [b. 1886] put his mathematical skills to work to master the mathematics of gambling, specializing in the game of baccarat…Zographos had a staggering memory; he could memorize every hand that was played throughout a game of baccarat in which 312 cards [6 deck shoe - European Baccarat] are used. He was therefore almost able to predict the last few cards to be drawn. He could generally gauge the fluctuations in the odds favoring the bank and would know the odds of drawing the cards he needed and adjust his betting accordingly.”

Well thanks for your very thorough reply 146. I am similarly thorough 👍. I get what you've written and i wish there was more patience sloshing around, than what i've experienced so far.

as someone who has a degree in science, i like to test things. what if someone thinks they have some magic beans strategy, that could be run on simulation. and what if those simulations showed a profitable result for more than 80% of the players!

what would the gambling community do about that?

Quote: Wellbush

Well thanks for your very thorough reply 146. I am similarly thorough 👍. I get what you've written and i wish there was more patience sloshing around, than what i've experienced so far.

as someone who has a degree in science, i like to test things. what if someone thinks they have some magic beans strategy, that could be run on simulation. and what if those simulations showed a profitable result for more than 80% of the players!

what would the gambling community do about that?

You're welcome.

I could cause a simulation to have a profitable result for more than 80% of players by using a simple Martingale. The catch is that all players would attempt a several step Martingale only once and stop as soon as it succeeds.

The overall result will be a loss to the tune of the house edge.

Quote: Mission146

You're welcome.

I could cause a simulation to have a profitable result for more than 80% of players by using a simple Martingale. The catch is that all players would attempt a several step Martingale only once and stop as soon as it succeeds.

The overall result will be a loss to the tune of the house edge.

what if the simulation was designed in such a way that there was no specific outcome that could be manipulated, and that simulation provided an outcome of 80% profitability for its players?

Over all, what WellBush is getting at, isn't as simple as one would think.

On the one hand, yes, there has to be a REASON for betting more on one hand than the other. Mechanically varying the bet just to follow some kind of progression in a vacuum is not going to work over time.

On the other hand, in a game like Blackjack, there is no option to NOT bet, so obviously flat betting is not going to work either - and anyone who says that flat betting will work at Blackjack is not worthy of past, present or future consideration as to anything he or she might have to say. There are such lost souls.
The only conceivable way flat betting might work at Blackjack is if one player were at the table and then alerted another to pop in and jack the bet, but even then, effectively, that is not flat betting as the two players are working as a team and the introduction of the second player is just like increasing the over all bet.

Now in Baccarat, there is the option to not bet, so I suppose flat betting might work, if the same REASONing that were applied to when to bet more were applied to when to bet at all. And that's not to divulge what that reasoning might be. 😝

And then over all - in deference to Wellbush - even if there were no reason to increase the bet other than having won the hand before, still, if I win say 400 on one hand and then place 600 on the next, between the two I am risking 200 to win a thousand, and after I have won three hands in a row in a progression, there is no risk at all on pressing into the fourth hand. So even absent an edge which directs one to know whether one hand is higher probability than another in a table game, whether it be Blackjack or Baccarat, if you ever want even a chance of getting anywhere other than just grinding out a few bucks, or being eaten up by the house edge, you must vary your bet.

If you're too careful, your whole life can become a _____' grind.

You can't lose what you don't put in the middle.
But you can't win much either.

Quote: Wellbush

what if the simulation was designed in such a way that there was no specific outcome that could be manipulated, and that simulation provided an outcome of 80% profitability for its players?

I'm afraid that I don't quite understand the question. Outcomes don't get, "Manipulated," just distributed in different ways. That's why the overall result of any simulation of any significant size will be all players combined losing to the tune of the house edge.

Quote: MDawg

Mechanically varying the bet just to follow some kind of progression in a vacuum is not going to work over time.

why not, MD?

146 can reply to my prev post while i continue with MD.

I'll answer with an illustration. During one of my recent sessions, this player plopped down at my table that I realized quite quickly was playing a Martingale, doubling on one side or the other. Didn't even have much a bankroll, just 1000. I had had them raise the minimum to 300 to keep others away, but this player actually started with a 300 bet, which was astonishing to me, given that the player had a mere 1000 bankroll.

I had cut the shoe, and for some time, bank or player never went past two. The player's stacks were rising steadily, and I commented that "if this shoe never goes past two, this one is going to make a fortune." I have had such shoes - where it almost never goes past 2 on either side, and in such shoes, I have made a ton of money, but not through any kind of Martingale, but by jacking the bet on the opposite side, every time one side or the other has gone exactly two. On such shoes I've actually just sat there not betting except after one side or the other has gone two. After I've won one such big hand, then two, then three, then what am I risking by trying it again? Nothing, as I am already far ahead, and it's uncanny how many shoes maintain such a pattern. But, most, do not maintain such a pattern for long, which is why my other techniques are called for in those situations.

For a while there - this player was doing better than I was! I was winning, but this player was winning more! I was still more observing the shoe than betting, but this player was cleaning up.

And then of course, the inevitable runs came, and I started cleaning up, and the Martingale player was wiped out.

Mechanically varying the bet without a reason just doesn't work, sometimes not even in the short term.

I mean, as you saw in the Wizard witnessed session, I am just as likely to LOWER my bet after a loss, as increase it. Just depends on a variety of factors.

Quote: Mission146

I'm afraid that I don't quite understand the question. Outcomes don't get, "Manipulated," just distributed in different ways. That's why the overall result of any simulation of any significant size will be all players combined losing to the tune of the house edge.

So what you're saying 146, is that all simulations eventually produce all players combining to lose by the house edge.

What I'm asking is, what if someone were to produce simulations that did not produce the above outcome! That produced an outcome, based on a particular strategy, that resulted in a long term outcome of a win to approx. 80% of the players?

Quote: MDawg

Mechanically varying the bet without a reason just doesn't work, sometimes not even in the short term.

Hm...and if one has a considerable bankroll?

Quote: Wellbush

So what you're saying 146, is that all simulations eventually produce all players combining to lose by the house edge.

What I'm asking is, what if someone were to produce simulations that did not produce the above outcome! That produced an outcome, based on a particular strategy, that resulted in a long term outcome of a win to approx. 80% of the players?

They could, but approximately 20% of the players would lose.

After that, if you added the amounts won by the 80% together and then subtracted by the sum of the losses sustained by the 20%, then divided that outcome by the total made in bets—-the final result would be a cumulative loss to the tune of the house edge.

If you can produce a simulation that does otherwise in a significant sample size AND the simulation itself is found to be mathematically valid—I will congratulate you. You will be the first person to have ever accomplished such a thing.

The downside being: it’s not possible.

I have a pretty big bankroll, and I don't Martingale. The idea of risking vast sums just to win a little seems absurd.

I suppose my play has demonstrated that l am not opposed to risking a lot to win a lot, but then, I haven't said anything too specific about what I am doing or why.

Didn't the Wizard and Teliot say that ninety some percent of Vegas gamblers are ahead at some point during their trips? So I suppose that means that ninety some percent of gamblers could win no matter what else they are doing.

146: The downside being: it’s not possible.

WB: It's not possible if the simulations being run don't allow it!

Quote: Wellbush

but what if it's someone like MD, who claims, and has shown, he can win? i mean, the wiz saw him do it. And the wiz confirmed MD played the way he always says he does. MD can also show 'certain' people his financial records at the casinos, if he chooses to. is that proof enough?

in this case, the simulations are on shaky ground, are they not? otherwise we're stating that both can exist - someone who wins by varying bet-size, and simulations that say he can't!

Those simulations are on games with a negative expectation for the player. Players who win regularly over time do so with a positive expectation. That is why they both exist.

Quote: Wellbush

So what you're saying 146, is that all simulations eventually produce all players combining to lose by the house edge.

What I'm asking is, what if someone were to produce simulations that did not produce the above outcome! That produced an outcome, based on a particular strategy, that resulted in a long term outcome of a win to approx. 80% of the players?

Then they could have won $20,000 from The Wizard: https://wizardofodds.com/gambling/betting-systems/challenge/#:~:text=The%20system%20must%20have%20a,under%20ordinary%20United%20States%20rules.

And they could also be winning many millions more from casinos. If they aren't doing that, then it is not strategy that can produce profits over the long term.

-----

There was an earlier comment about the house edge at baccarat having only minimal effect on results. That is wrong. During fully operating years, Nevada casinos profit over $1 billion from baccarat. If there was no house edge, that would drop to very close to zero. Although that money returned to the players would be spread out over everyone, it would be proportional to how much everyone played. A full time baccarat player who bets $2,000 per hand on average, has an seven hour, five day work week, would see their profits increase by $50,000 per week. I only know a few people who could find a use for an extra $50,000 per week.

As far as Baccarat: Makes no sense. If the house edge is the only reason why people lose, then with no house edge, people would neither win nor lose, by that thinking. Just not the way it works, sorry. Spend some time at the tables and you'll understand what is really going on. You have no idea.

I suppose there are some people who lose only because of the house edge - grinders who flat bet bank only, but I have yet to meet more than a few such players my whole life at the tables.

However, we don't need to debate this further. There are casinos that had in the past 4% bank commission, and 2.75% bank commission. There was even a 0% bank commission traditional Baccarat game for a while. Is it possible to find out how those casinos did, at Baccarat? And even then, we'd need to look at the spread between winning and losing players, was it significantly different with the lower commission?


You know, at one of my sessions when I was up and left ahead a ton, one of my hosts stopped by and I joked that "the commission is killing me!" That host knew how much I was up, and just shook his head.

I've won and left town with around a half million Baccarat win during an approximately ten day period. You think the house edge got me down during that run?

Quote: MDawg

I have a pretty big bankroll, and I don't Martingale. The idea of risking vast sums just to win a little seems absurd.

And it is. But what if one had a strategy that circumvented the need for vast sums?

Quote: MDawg

I've won and left town with around a half million Baccarat win during an approximately ten day period. You think the house edge got me down during that run?

I don't think the dispute is the effect of the house edge over the short run. And i'm assuming a ten day period is a short run. i think the dispute by many here, is the effect of the house edge over the long term.

You state you've beaten the house edge, over the long term. Others (not me) are skeptical.

Quote: TomG

And they could also be winning many millions more from casinos. If they aren't doing that, then it is not strategy that can produce profits over the long term.

Thanks Tom. Are you saying people aren't doing that?

The main problem with what you say is that multiple times you have said that you knew a player was coming. This makes no sense and if know it’s coming one time you should know every time. The language you use just fundamentally makes no sense it comes across as hocus pocus in my opinion. Also when you claim you can’t DO YOUR THING. when others are there the only thing you could not do with others there is cheat, not saying you are but just saying that would be all that fits.

Quote: MDawg

As far as Baccarat: Makes no sense. If the house edge is the only reason why people lose, then with no house edge, people would neither win nor lose, by that thinking. Just not the way it works, sorry. Spend some time at the tables and you'll understand what is really going on. You have no idea.

You seem to not understand what "house edge" means.

hi sarbe. what do you think of the block function?

Quote: Wellbush

hi sarbe. what do you think of the block function?

I don't think you know what house edge means either.

pardon?

Quote: Wellbush

pardon?

I don't think you know what house edge means either.

i'm sorry, i don't wish to offend, but i'm having trouble hearing you. a bit louder please.

Quote: Wellbush

i'm sorry, i don't wish to offend, but i'm having trouble hearing you. a bit louder please.

I don't think you know what house edge means either.

Quote: Expectedvalue

The main problem with what you say is that multiple times you have said that you knew a player was coming. This makes no sense and if know it’s coming one time you should know every time. The language you use just fundamentally makes no sense it comes across as hocus pocus in my opinion. Also when you claim you can’t DO YOUR THING. when others are there the only thing you could not do with others there is cheat, not saying you are but just saying that would be all that fits.

It doesn't have to be 100% certainty to have an advantage. So long as someone knows the probability of player winning is over 50%, it is +EV. So long as the probability of banker winning is over 51%, it is +EV. (counting ties as no action). The further over those probabilities, the greater the advantage to the bettor.

Day 49 play

I held my own with some movement to the downside until on the second shoe I started a Player run with a few grand, unfortunately, I didn't press to four thousand on the next hand, because the three thousand win represented pretty much my entire upside at that moment, and I didn't feel like risking every bit of it on the very next hand, but I did keep a thousand on there and press that a few hundred at a time all the way to the end. I free handed several hands after that until I determined that the shoe was not going to streak in that way again, at least not anytime soon, and called it a day.

Ended +10500

I can tell you what I would have won if I had flat bet this session. Zero zilch - I would have lost.

Note: Lately, for security reasons, session reports are not necessarily presented in real time corresponding directly to the day played.



I'm willing to present a side Challenge. If anyone doubts that any one, just any one of the Session reports I present during this trip is not entirely accurate, throw down a red flag! Put up a mere ten grand in cash, let's work out how to verify the Session to your satisfaction using the Wizard as the judge, and winner takes the twenty thousand.

I'll contribute five hundred from my end for the Wizard's time if the Challenger will do the same, so that's a net $19,000. to the winner of this side Challenge.

This Side Challenge remains good for the duration of this particular Vegas trip.

Quote: MDawg

I can tell you what I would have won if I had flat bet this session. Zero zilch - I would have lost.

If you want to get flat in your armchair and talk about what might or might not be possible in theory, then you've already resigned yourself to not playing the best way possible.

When I play either Blackjack or Baccarat I vary my bet, and that is part of the optimum strategy and anyone trying to claim that flat betting is the way to go for most especially Blackjack deserves absolute contumely for such an opinion. Incidentally, my comments about flat betting had absolutely nothing to do with KewlJ and neither am I commenting now on anything he has to say or wants to say. I could care less what he thinks. He wasn't on my mind in the slightest when I posted my opinion on flat betting earlier in this thread.

i didn't know you played BJ as well, MD.

from what you've mentioned, you seem to use positive progression with some card flow insights for baca. but i could be wrong. you don't have to elaborate.

i use negative progression, but i'll always be open to improvements and different styles

Quote: Gialmere

--------------------------------

Quote: MDawg

I've played Chemin de Fer twice in Monaco (Monte Carlo) when visiting there, but when in Europe I am not there to gamble, so it was just for the experience and I don't precisely recall exactly how it worked, but I do believe it was the same as the above stated rules. This "stand or draw" on 5 option is part of the Chemin de Fer plot in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, also in Goldeneye.

[Note the OHMSS mention]

If MDawg is reading this, I'd be interested on his general thoughts about playing the game. Bond films, naturally, make it look glamorous -- a fun and exciting table game for the social gambler. The reality, I suspect, is probably just people sitting around making small bets with few bancos called and even fewer people willing to bank.

Hi Gialmere. If you don't mind, I will comment here because I would like to segue into a general commentary on Baccarat. The two things I recall the most vividly about playing in Monte Carlo (once you paid or were screened sufficiently to get into the holiest of holies back salon), are that the cards were handed over ceremoniously on paddles, and the way (most) everyone, French speaking or not, would say the word "Carte" with a flowing French accent when requesting a hit.

No, not everyone was not in a tuxedo (including me - I actually did dress up, but not black tie, I didn't even have a tuxedo with me when in Europe either of those trips), and no, it wasn't just a bunch of counts and earls and rich Russians tossing massive sums out there, but, just to get into the "most high" salon you do have to be with somebody, known yourself, or pay your way in, and in any case be screened via your passport and social security number.

As far as Baccarat in general, it has been described as "oddly addictive," and I do believe that it is exactly that - there just is a certain draw to the anticipation of gradually having your fate revealed through the cards. It's somehow different psychologically speaking from Blackjack, although, it has been said that people who prefer table games (over slots) are wired in a certain way to appreciate the rise and fall of tension as the cards are dealt and the hand outcome is revealed - whereas for example slots enthusiasts, simply seek to achieve a sort of "numbing, zoned out high" from the constant movement spin after spin of the slots screens or reels.

Rarely is a person who enjoys slots also into table games, and most table games enthusiasts look down on slots players. Turns out though that all of this is psychologically based, and a person wired to enjoy slots may no more change his brain persona than a person wired to enjoy table games.

Quote: Wellbush

i didn't know you played BJ as well, MD.

I used to play A LOT of Blackjack and I won at it very consistently, but did get flack from at least one of the major casino chains as a result of too many consistent relatively high dollar Blackjack winning trips. I switched to Baccarat primarily because I was banned from Blackjack at that chain, but then by the time the ban was lifted I was winning so much at Baccarat that I didn't have a lot of interest in returning to Blackjack, although I still do play some.

I was commenting to one of the pit bosses the other day, that the ones I feel sorry for at the Baccarat tables are the "kids" (not exactly kids, but members of the younger set), who come in with one or two stacks of high society and seem to view Baccarat as a "business" to make money. I haven't really seen any of them do much more than flush large sums of cash down the slot into the drop box, and yet they seem to keep coming back.

One pit boss was saying that these are poker players, who also play Baccarat.

Now that I think about it, over the years I have met more than a few professional poker players who also play Baccarat. I am not sure what the connection is there but there is a connection.

I just don't play poker in Vegas because I don't have time for that grind I have a set amount of energy I'm willing to put into gaming per day, and getting in and out at Baccarat with a profit doesn't usually take me long.

Quote: Wellbush

146: The downside being: it’s not possible.

WB: It's not possible if the simulations being run don't allow it!

It's a fairly simple concept:

(Bet Amount * House Edge-Expressed as Decimal) = Expected Loss

The amount to the right of = will continue to grow and grow as more bets are made.

A game can have a house edge (of itself) and there might be circumstances/situations outside of the game on the felt that result in an advantage on the overall proposition, but no system or decisions when to play or, "Take a break," are in any way relevant to that.

The reason it is not possible is because any simulation that, "Allows for it," would be a flawed simulation. The reason that there would have to be a flaw in the simulation is because you can not sum up a bunch of losses (which would now be expressed as negative numbers) and end up with a positive number.

So, betting systems advocates have only three possibilities to believe:

1.) This system will change the House Edge into a player advantage. (You have denied that you believe this, I think)

2.) Math does not exist.

3.) Math does exist, but you CAN add up a bunch of negative numbers to create a positive one.

Whereas, non-advocates (or people who play systems for fun whilst understanding that no advantage is conveyed to the player) believe:

1.) Math exists. Because of math/systems, the distribution of results can be changed, but the math will always say that I am expected to lose.

Quote: MDawg

When I play either Blackjack or Baccarat I vary my bet, and that is part of the optimum strategy and anyone trying to claim that flat betting is the way to go for most especially Blackjack deserves absolute contumely for such an opinion. Incidentally, my comments about flat betting had absolutely nothing to do with KewlJ and neither am I commenting now on anything he has to say or wants to say. I could care less what he thinks. He wasn't on my mind in the slightest when I posted my opinion on flat betting earlier in this thread.

(Quote clipped, relevance)

Longevity of play concerns aside, if a person were reliably catching the dealer's hole card playing Blackjack, then it would be mathematically optimal for the person to flat bet table max, assuming, of course, that they knew at least some of the correct strategy deviations one would make with this knowledge.

Quote: Mission146

Longevity of play concerns aside, if a person were reliably catching the dealer's hole card playing Blackjack, then it would be mathematically optimal for the person to flat bet table max, assuming, of course, that they knew at least some of the correct strategy deviations one would make with this knowledge.

Frankly someone suggesting that flat betting blackjack or baccarat isn't the best option for many AP opportunities deserves absolute contumely for such an opinion.

Quote: Mission146

Quote: MDawg

When I play either Blackjack or Baccarat I vary my bet, and that is part of the optimum strategy and anyone trying to claim that flat betting is the way to go for most especially Blackjack deserves absolute contumely for such an opinion. Incidentally, my comments about flat betting had absolutely nothing to do with KewlJ and neither am I commenting now on anything he has to say or wants to say. I could care less what he thinks. He wasn't on my mind in the slightest when I posted my opinion on flat betting earlier in this thread.

(Quote clipped, relevance)

Longevity of play concerns aside, if a person were reliably catching the dealer's hole card playing Blackjack, then it would be mathematically optimal for the person to flat bet table max, assuming, of course, that they knew at least some of the correct strategy deviations one would make with this knowledge.

The two bit casinos where Blackjack hole carding might still be happening wouldn't allow someone to flat bet table max for very long. Which gets back to theory versus reality. No consistent table game winner flat bets.

Anyway, you're talking about unique circumstances not many of these guys on this forum are doing much of anything as far as high end table games or even table games at all, other than commenting and you know it Mission146! I'm one of the few actually in the trenches doing it. Which is why I ignore many of them, but some of them love to squeak occasionally.

Quote: MDawg

The two bit casinos where Blackjack hole carding might still be happening wouldn't allow someone to flat bet table max for very long. Which gets back to theory versus reality. No consistent table game winner flat bets.

Anyway, you're talking about unique circumstances not many of these guys on this forum are doing much of anything as far as high end table games or even table games at all, other than commenting and you know it Mission146! I'm one of the few actually in the trenches doing it. Which is why I ignore many of them, but some of them love to squeak occasionally.

The point being, whether we are discussing theory v. reality or reality v. reality, winning at your clip (and assuming all reporting is generally true) one of three things is possible:

1.) You are ridiculously to the right side of the bell curve.

2.) There is something afoot aside from varying bet amounts that, if not swings the proposition entirely in your favor, at least swings it somewhat in your favor. (You have essentially already admitted to at least one such thing and Wizard also implied that something along these lines is afoot.)

OR:

3.) Both.

As to the question of whether or not any, "Consistent table game winner flat bets," I make no claims of knowing the results of every single individual to ever play Table Games. My point is that it is possible, which as you will recall, was my initial defense of your claims before the Wizard meetup.

In any case, I don't really get into disputing individual claims unless the claims are just, in my opinion, patently ridiculous...and I set a very high bar.

I do know that I am doing nothing but commenting on possibilities. Make no mistake, I am a supremely low-level machine hustler who does not aspire to be anything more than that, from an AP standpoint. Some of your reported single bets are my entire action some months, but it's not me who is here making any claims or reporting my results. The most I've done in Table Games in the last few years is spotted some hole-card/mispaying dealer type opportunities that I have passed along.

But, I do know the math. And whether Wellbush (who seems to be coming around) believes it or not, I'm trying to help prevent him (and any readers) from losing money due to some misguided belief that betting systems, varying one's betting amounts or, "Taking breaks," does anything by itself.

It would probably help if you would directly tell Wellbush that there is more to what you're doing than that. A lot more. Things that actually change the overall mathematical proposition. But, of course, you're under no obligation.