Will the D'Alembert produce a win on a 50/50 game of chance?
Quote: Bmayo319Gr8 player for president!
Well, thank you for that kind thought, Bmayo319, much appreciated.
But I'm afraid that in this forum I'd run a close second to Attila the Hun.....
Quote: gr8player
However, let's look at the inverse:
7L v 0W = -7 move up to next level
6L v 1W = -5 move up to next level
5L v 2W = -3 move up to next level
Those are losing series', and we move to the next level until recoup. Now, you'll notice one losing series omitted for that list, the 4L v 3W = -1; in that instance, I remain at the same level. I will not adjust levels after such any minor loss.
If I am understaing your progression correctly on the inverse of your actual sessions, after losing 7 units, your next stage would be betting 2 units for a loss of 10 units and then a base bet of 3 units for loss of 9. What am I missing here? Is it to do with the order in which the wins fell?
Each series consists of 7 bets. So you'd begin at level one (1 unit) and you'd record your results thusly:
+1 -1 +1 +1 -1 +1 +1 so after these 7 bets you're at +3 units (5W v 2L)....simply begin a new series at the same primary level.
Next series goes thusly:
-1 -1 +1 -1 +1 -1 -1 so after these 7 bets you're at a -3 units (2W v 5L)....so we proceed to level 2, betting 2 units per bet, thusly:
+2 -2 +2 +2 we stop right here, because we've successfully recouped the loss from our prior level, winning 3 bets and losing 1, for a +2, but it's a +2 at level 2, which is a 2-unit bet, so we're at a +4 units for that series, and we've successfully recouped our 3-unit loss from the prior level, and we're actually at a +1 for the session at this point.
Now we restart at our primary (level 1) level and continue on....rinse and repeat.
I hope that assists in clarifying it for you, Walkinshaw30t.
Quote: gr8player
But I'm afraid that in this forum I'd run a close second to Attila the Hun.....
But you'd be better than the empty suit we have now...
Quote: chickenmanBut you'd be better than the empty suit we have now...
+100
Quote: gr8player
7L v 0W = -7 move up to next level
6L v 1W = -5 move up to next level
5L v 2W = -3 move up to next level
Ohhh, no no no no no, Walkinshaw30t, I'm afraid you're not really understanding my progression at all, perhaps some clarification will help:
Each series consists of 7 bets. So you'd begin at level one (1 unit) and you'd record your results thusly:
+1 -1 +1 +1 -1 +1 +1 so after these 7 bets you're at +3 units (5W v 2L)....simply begin a new series at the same primary level.
Next series goes thusly:
-1 -1 +1 -1 +1 -1 -1 so after these 7 bets you're at a -3 units (2W v 5L)....so we proceed to level 2, betting 2 units per bet, thusly:
Are we on the same page of what Im talking about playing against?
Quote: AxiomOfChoice
Let me be very clear here: Someone could observe you bet on 1000 non-tied (as in, if the result of the hand is a tie, it won't count towards the total) hands of baccarat from an 8-deck shoe in a real casino that has reasonable game-protection procedures (eg, procedures that prevent edge-sorting). If you win 530 or more of those 1000 bets, you would win the side-bet. If you win 529 or less, you lose the side-bet.
Personally, I would gladly put up $10,000 against you in this side-bet, provided that I could observe the play, or someone who I trusted could, and that the money was held by a trusted third party. I'm sure that others would also be willing to bet on this. I'd suspect that you could easily get $100,000 in total action if you wished. And, of course, that $100,000 would be in addition to whatever you happened to win at the tables. I know full well that this will never happen, because you are well aware that your claimed 53% strike rate is nonsense. At least, this should put aside this "nothing to gain" theory. You have a lot to gain!
(Note to interested observers: if he bets on banker every time, he has about a 7.6% chance of winning. If he mixes his bets between player and banker, his chances of winning are less)
Axiom -- I like your line of thinking with asking Gr8player to prove his edge.
However your bet is a HORRIBLE proposition. He can go to the casino and bet $10,000 with a WAY bigger chance (50% vs 53%) of winning.
If you're serious here's what would make more sense:
Below 51% -- he pays you $10K.
Above 53% -- you pay him $15K.
According to your own math there's only a 7.6% chance he can hit this randomly.
Quote: gr8player...My strike rates were unusually low, and I was rather confident of a variance upturn at my next trip.
So, You'd had a bad run and had a hunch that you were due a good run?
Quote: gr8player...and you all know me well enough by now to know that I don't put myself into losing situations.
ROFLMAO. That's a typo: You wrote 'losing' when you meant 'playing'
Quote: gr8player...Oh, boy. I couldn't get a seat, and as I'm standing there I'm watching my plays hitting ...
Yeah, because before that shoe started, you knew it was going to be a hot shoe and that was confirmed as you could only watch from the sidelines.
Quote: gr8player...I predicted it two weeks earlier. I figured for a variance upturn, and upturn it did.
From an earlier post of yours...
Quote: gr8player...I am confident in my ability to read a shoe, to sense its direction, and, therefore, unafraid to bet to my abilities....
You crack me up.
To sum up my assessment of you gr8, I believe that you believe your own Gambler's fallacy: That with years of experience, you can predict when a shoe will be favourable or unfavourable, sometimes even before your trip, session or shoe starts. You sincerely believe that part way into a shoe, you can predict whether to stay or walk. You couple your misguided beliefs with a bit of prudent money management and a bit of less prudent progressive betting. Maybe, just maybe you win or lose more or less that some other players. Delude yourself that it's skill if it makes you feel better: you certainly seem to relish the attention and status of Gr8ness. Thanks and praise to all that have called you out, especially AOC.
