Desperately Seeking Baccarat

Quote: soxfan

I'm well, and still grinding a fulltime income at the bac table. Lots of AP wiseguys on this forum, I must say. I bet some of these cats won't even got to the latrine less they figure they have some kinda "edge", hey hey.

I'm pleased to read of your continued success, Soxster, and I'm glad to see you posting here.

Yeah, you will find your fill of "wiseguys", and they come in all shapes and sizes around here:

You've got your EvenBob (you know him as Spike) and your Beethoven9th (I can't tell you what I know him as without a suspension)...they post whenever and whatever, free reign to do as they please around here, disrupting each and every thread and tagging most every post. But they're the admin's darlings, so I'd suggest you just let them be, well, themselves. Anyone with half a brain has the both of them pegged for what they truly are, anyhow.

Then you've got your true AP's, and I've no quarrel with most of them. They're good people, and, for the most part, remain respectful. As I respect them. As I would any person doing all that they can to develop and maintain any edge that they can over the casino.

Lastly, you've got your "cats", as you put it, that pretty much regurgitate the casino's position regarding "all things gambling". And I understand their points, as well. But some of those "cats" can get their "claws out" in a huff, as they'll hear nothing that even attempts to rattle their long-held positions. But I've learned that it's simply the "cost of doing business" around here; if I want to continue membership, I've got to toe the line, or else I'm banished.

I am unable to post new threads, as I've been told not to do so by the admin. So a lot of what I can add to any Baccarat/gaming discussions remains, well, unsaid due to their imposed constraints. Funny, isn't it, Soxster? The post just before this one is a totally out-of-context Beavis/Butthead picture, all in the name of belittling me on a personal level, and they use my moniker "gr8player", or at least the "gr8" part of it, in front of every other member's names and their brothers, again all in the name of disrespect...but that, my friend, is totally acceptable around here. No, it's my threads, my posts...that's considered as the scourge of this particular forum. Sheesh...

Anyhow, this forum is better for having you as a new member, Soxster, welcome aboard, and stay well.

Rather than a lone PM, preferable to post here in the forum:

I am restrained from authoring new threads because of my reluctance to post my full Baccarat method and, hence, subject same to apropos mathematical scrutiny.

Here's my take on that:

Firstly, I've posted plenty of my "methodology" here in this very forum. All one would need to do is tie certain threads/post of mine together, and they'd serve as much better picture of my actual play. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out my approach and my play as the game; one does however, need do a bit of sorting out....not as much my doing as much as, well, certain liberties taken by certain ill-intentioned responders.

And, of course, there's always that "mathematical scrutiny" that I'd be subjected to. And, towards what end, exactly? For who's benefit? Might it be just so certain members/admin can get their chance to puff out their chest in absolute defiance of any winning "system"? Don't we all know the results of such scrutiny, in advance? I know I do. Look, you multiply the payout by the probability and you'll get your answer. A negative expectancy. Yeah...what of it? Is anyone denying that Baccarat, as all casino-banked games, carries an inherent negative expectancy? What of it? I'll tell you "what of it":

I maintain it can be breached. I maintain that by utilizing certain "player's edges":

Bet when you want.
Bet where you want.
Bet how much you want.
Stop and/or continue at your discretion.

Do any of these, in and of itself, change, mathematically, that inherent house edge? Nope. Sorry. The math don't lie.

But neither do I. And I play a game that allows certain bets to "come to me", as opposed to chasing for them, by use of certain variance stats on those bets (plays):

For ex: The Banker hitting the 3-hole. (Read: A third consecutive Bank win.) I have two separate and distinct trend plays that point that play out as advantageous for me. Now, the math...that casino math...remains the same, and I'm still going to be subjected to it on every Bank bet, by paying my 5% commission. I get that, and I'm fine with that. Because I win...when the Banker hits that 3-hole, I win. Oh, and when it doesn't hit the 3-hole, I still win. Just not right away. Eventually. You see, I track its variance. That play falls 3 under (avg longest loss streak = 4.2), and I'll adjust my bet size upward. 5 under? Rare indeed, but another sizing adjustment is in order. I will recoup that play. As I said above: eventually. So I will win with each and every one of my preferred plays....either immediate or staggered....I will hit them.

How do you guys want to test that play? You can't. And here's why?:

I don't play for them "mechanically". I play for them only on a "trigger" basis. Subjectively. I speak "table-ese". I klisten to what the shoe/table is telling me, and then I decide the "when's" and the "where's" and, eventually, the "how much's".

How do you guys want to test that sort of subjective play? You can't.

But, I'm remiss if I don't mention that I remain prohibited from authoring new threads, where I could expound on those theories, methodologies, and plays; all because I won't "lay down" for those that would prefer to see me in their light, conforming to their standards.

That, my friends, ain't never gonna happen....

Stay well.

My esteemed teacher is back!!!!

Teacher, why do you always appear right after another member gets—

Well, I'd better not say it. I don't want to anger the world's foremost expert on everything baccarat!!

Quote: gr8player

I don't play for them "mechanically". I play for them only on a "trigger" basis. Subjectively. I speak "table-ese". I klisten to what the shoe/table is telling me, and then I decide the "when's" and the "where's" and, eventually, the "how much's"...

This is a different statement from previous one's you have made where you said you play mechanically and consistently the same way -every time-.

You were challenged to work out your expected value on your key trigger bets, and shown ways to do this, but I see you are still ducking that 'challenge'.

You cannot breach the expected value on every bet if it's always there. It's either not always there, you have experience happy side of the variance curve, or you do have positive EV on some plays. Expected Value is not Actual Value, though. A mistake many people make in various talks about systems, methods and plays (there's plenty of this in Craps threads as well, and VP threads). Actual value is the result of the play. Actual Value does not justify ignoring the EV, or pretending 'it didn't apply'. But it might make you check your assumptions about the EV... it could be wrong (something that happens to sports gamblers... they assume they can pick 60% winners... but reality can hit them and find... they don't).

Quote: Beethoven9th

My esteemed teacher is back!!!!

Teacher, why do you always appear right after another member gets—

Well, I'd better not say it. I don't want to anger the world's foremost expert on everything baccarat!!

What are you insinuating, "gr8Beethoven"?

That I'm Varmenti? Is that it?

Yep. You got me. You are one smart man.

One word: Sheeeeessshhh......

Quote: thecesspit

This is a different statement from previous one's you have made where you said you play mechanically and consistently the same way -every time-.

You were challenged to work out your expected value on your key trigger bets, and shown ways to do this, but I see you are still ducking that 'challenge'.

You cannot breach the expected value on every bet if it's always there. It's either not always there, you have experience happy side of the variance curve, or you do have positive EV on some plays. Expected Value is not Actual Value, though. A mistake many people make in various talks about systems, methods and plays (there's plenty of this in Craps threads as well, and VP threads). Actual value is the result of the play. Actual Value does not justify ignoring the EV, or pretending 'it didn't apply'. But it might make you check your assumptions about the EV... it could be wrong (something that happens to sports gamblers... they assume they can pick 60% winners... but reality can hit them and find... they don't).

Hello, thecesspit. I trust all is well with you.

I am ducking no challenge; rather, I wish not to waste mine nor anyone's time with a lesson in futility.

Maybe I do have, as you put it, a "positive EV on some plays" as they are adjusted for current variance.

Thank you again for your constructive input, thecesspit, you know it's always appreciated.

No, not at all, my esteemed teacher! I apologize if you had gotten that impression. I would NEVER EVER insult the world's foremost expert in everything baccarat!

Quote: gr8player

...a "positive EV on some plays" as they are adjusted for current variance.

LOL!

"LOL". Why "LOL"?

Could it be because you simply don't understand it, so you choose to slough it off?

How could that be, Betthoven9th? After all, you've deduced that Mr. Varmenti and I are the same person, haven't you? I mean, surely you can see the similarities in our writings and our plays and our methodologies and our beliefs....sure, we are, quite obviously, one and the same person; at least according to you and your equally-impressive and equally-deductive EvenBob. How could anyone miss it? What's that you call him: oh, yeah..."gr8Varmenti", that's it. Just to make sure that no one misses the fact that both myself and Varmenti are the very same person, you've resorted to combining our names. And you and EvenBob do this even in the face of our esteemed admin coming out and vouching for the fact that the two of us have no apparent ties in any way, shape, or form. But, can you see, when people choose to be disruptive, when they choose to harm, and when they choose to deceive, facts simply do not matter. Only their personal abusive agenda matters. To them. Very selfish. But, continue on, as our admin endorses such nonsense with his very silence on the matter.

Now, back to "adjusted for variance":

If casino's had no betting limits, it is conceivable that a "Martingaler", who doubles his bet after each loss, would, eventually, have to come out ahead by winning his last high bet. And what is it that the Martingaler is doing, Beethoven9th?:

He's "adjusting his bet size for the current variance", and coming up with a positive expectation by doing so. Imagine that.

So you keep right on laughing, even if your doing so proves that you simply know no better....

Quote: gr8player

Hello, thecesspit. I trust all is well with you.

I am ducking no challenge; rather, I wish not to waste mine nor anyone's time with a lesson in futility.

Knowing when you have positive EV, and when you don't will allow you to exploit your advantage all the more. Not a time waste of futility at all.

It would help you identify leaks in your game, as well as new sources for gain.

But if that's 'futile' for you, well... good luck all the same, but don't expect respect when you seem to be willing to only use half the story the Mathematics of the game is telling you.

Quote: thecesspit

Knowing when you have positive EV, and when you don't will allow you to exploit your advantage all the more. Not a time waste of futility at all.

It would help you identify leaks in your game, as well as new sources for gain.

Thanks again, thecesspit. I hear you and I understand.

Please know that while I may not know my "positive EV" stats offhand, rest assured, I know when I'm getting the better of it. I recognize my upswings, and I take advantage of them, regardless of knowing the actual expected value.

(Sidenote: I do the same with my downturns...all in an attempt to minimize any BR damage.)

Please do not be angry with me, teacher. Please go back and read my posts in this thread. I made no such accusations! But since I have somehow offended the world's foremost expert in everything baccarat, then I sincerely apologize.

Quote: thecesspit

Knowing when you have positive EV, and when you don't will allow you to exploit your advantage all the more. Not a time waste of futility at all.

It would help you identify leaks in your game, as well as new sources for gain.

But if that's 'futile' for you, well... good luck all the same, but don't expect respect when you seem to be willing to only use half the story the Mathematics of the game is telling you.

+250,000

(Nope, that's not a reference to the $250K you lost at baccarat, teacher. It just means 250,000 thumbs up!)

Quote: gr8player

Please know that while I may not know my "positive EV" stats offhand, rest assured, I know when I'm getting the better of it.

My teacher must have supernatural abilities!

Quote: gr8player

Thanks again, thecesspit. I hear you and I understand.

Please know that while I may not know my "positive EV" stats offhand, rest assured, I know when I'm getting the better of it. I recognize my upswings, and I take advantage of them, regardless of knowing the actual expected value.

(Sidenote: I do the same with my downturns...all in an attempt to minimize any BR damage.)

Seems highly unlikely that you do, actually. Or understand the point I am making. Anyone can notice that they are 'winning' today. That's not what I am talking about at all.

Quote: Beethoven9th

My esteemed teacher is back!!!!

Teacher, why do you always appear right after another member gets—

Well, I'd better not say it. I don't want to anger the world's foremost expert on everything baccarat!!

Did you notice one has more time to spend writing when ever the other gets suspended ?

Quote: thecesspit

Seems highly unlikely that you do, actually. Or understand the point I am making. Anyone can notice that they are 'winning' today. That's not what I am talking about at all.

thecesspit, I fear you're selling me short once again.

I was not referencing "noticing that I am winning" with my "getting the better of it" statement. I meant the anticipation of same, and adjusting my play accordingly.

I do understand your point, but, with all due respect, I am in no need of any further statistical adjustments to my Baccarat play. I carry my stats, and my stats, frankly, are all that matter to me right now.

That said, could I get a better focus on my game with renewed knowledge? I probably could. I'm with you there, thecesspit.

But I just wish not to cram anything else into my Baccarat space anymore. It's already chock-filled.

I play this game as a perfectionist. And I pay the price for that...constant tinkering, trying to make my outcome (read: long term success) as much a certainty as I'm able to. And that takes it toll.

Witness: I lost last Friday afternoon at the Borgata. Nothing major, a half-dozen units, and, in fact, I still came out ahead for the entire trip. But that loss has got to be replayed, with my scorecards, tonight on my deck after I get home around 5:30. That's the kind of nut I am...I lost, and I want to know what I could've done to pare that damage down even further. So I'll review where I might've utilized too aggressive a MM strategy after a couple of failed parlay attempts...I'm not quite certain right now, but by tonight I'll have a clearer picture. That's the kind of nut I am. My play has got to be perfect, always.

Hopefully, you did not simply forget to chart the table first.

Quote: Buzzard

Hopefully, you did not simply forget to chart the table first.

Hello, Buzzard. I'll respond, even though I already know, up front, what I'm dealing with here...you're not my biggest fan, you've made that rather obvious in your posts directed towards me.

I do not chart tables. Never have, never will. I do, however, look at the prior scorecards to get an overview of the latest results. But that does not predicate my sitting down to play, or not.

I much prefer to play this shoe's current propensities, and match that to my preferred plays. I don't chase for my plays...I await confirmation from the current shoe's propensities.

Now, lest anyone think that that simply cannot be done because those propensities are ever-changing, you are right. It can't be done mechanically flat-betting. It requires no-betting and bet-size adjustments, in order to reduce the damage when your preferred plays are sleeping and to maximize those times when you are, in fact, in synch with the shoe.

Quote: AxelWolf

Did you notice one has more time to spend writing when ever the other gets suspended ?

And yet another esteemed member expresses his invaluable insight: that somehow, some way, Varmenti and I are one.

Know this:

Nothing....N.O.T.H.I.N.G.!!!....you could ever think or could ever say could ever be further from the truth.

Quote: gr8player

And yet another esteemed member expresses his invaluable insight: that somehow, some way, Varmenti and I are one.

Know this:

Nothing....N.O.T.H.I.N.G.!!!....you could ever think or could ever say could ever be further from the truth.

You don't have a winning BAC system

Quote: AxelWolf

You don't have a winning BAC system

And you make that definitive statement based only upon your rather limited, all due respect, knowledge of my personal Bac play. Or might it simply be the comfort of that daunted house edge talking for you?

Either way, you're almost as sure of yourself as I am of myself....difference is, one of us actually profits from that inherent confidence.

Stay well, AxelWolf.

Quote: gr8player

And you make that definitive statement based only upon your rather limited, all due respect, knowledge of my personal Bac play.

No, he makes that definitive statement knowing that your personal style of play doesn't make any difference. So do I, for that matter. You believe you "have the best of it" at certain points during a baccarat shoe based on charting or trends, but that is demonstrably false. It'd be easy enough to demonstrate, too -- just play through a baccarat shoe and announce before each hand whether and on which bets you believe you have the best of it. If you keep track of the cards out of the deck as you go, the remainder can be deduced and the composition-dependent edge can be computed. If it's positive, you have the edge; if negative, the house still has it. I'd guess you would be wrong nearly 100% of the time.

And if you want to keep your secret system secret, you don't even need to make any bets. Just make private scribbles on your scorecard and only announce when the favorable bets show up. That way nobody knows your system. I'm sure there's some reason you'll decline to put your method to the test, but nevertheless there's as simple a verification as you could hope for.

Quote: gr8player

And you make that definitive statement based only upon your rather limited, all due respect, knowledge of my personal Bac play. Or might it simply be the comfort of that daunted house edge talking for you? Either way, you're almost as sure of yourself as I am of myself....difference is, one of us actually profits from that inherent confidence. Stay well, AxelWolf.

The only thing I know about baccarat is James Bond movies and what I read on Wizard of Odds. No edge for me so I leave it alone. Axelwolf doesn't fight probability. He makes it work for him. Having never met either of you the only thing I can go by is your respective posts, of which I've read many. Axelwolf is my kind of gambler. No offense, gr8player, but in comparing the two of you for sheer knowledge and skill as overall gamblers I have to tell you, my friend, that all you can do is eat Axelwolf's dust.

Dang, this place is even more entertaining than the gambling glen was in the old days. It's coconut city in here, hey hey!!!!

Quote: MathExtremist

No, he makes that definitive statement knowing that your personal style of play doesn't make any difference. So do I, for that matter. You believe you "have the best of it" at certain points during a baccarat shoe based on charting or trends, but that is demonstrably false. It'd be easy enough to demonstrate, too -- just play through a baccarat shoe and announce before each hand whether and on which bets you believe you have the best of it. If you keep track of the cards out of the deck as you go, the remainder can be deduced and the composition-dependent edge can be computed. If it's positive, you have the edge; if negative, the house still has it. I'd guess you would be wrong nearly 100% of the time.

You're way off base with this comment, MathExtremist.

My play has absolutely nothing to do with any "deck composition-dependent edge", and, no, I do not "keep track of the cards" values at any time. It appears to me that the only one that's "wrong nearly 100% of the time" might be you, given this erroneous assessment of my play.

[Duplicate deleted]

My teacher is back!!! My teacher is back!!! HOORAY!!!!!!

Your baccarat buddy varmenti just got suspended, and his friend Lilchef62 got suspended as well, so your timing is perfect, my esteemed teacher! :)

Quote: gr8player

You're way off base with this comment, MathExtremist.

My play has absolutely nothing to do with any "deck composition-dependent edge", and, no, I do not "keep track of the cards" values at any time. It appears to me that the only one that's "wrong nearly 100% of the time" might be you, given this erroneous assessment of my play.

Nope, ME is NOT saying you need to track the cards. ME is clearly saying that is we deal out 22 hands (for example), and you say "wait! I think betting Player -right now- meets my methods and I would bet", we can see based on the rest of the deck if Player is actually an advantage play. We know the chance of Banker, Player and Tie for this deck right now.

Of course, it may not -win-, but that's not the point of an advantage play. The point is to have the best of it. He's saying that he suspects you cannot tell when you have the best of it at any point based on what we would know about the rest of the deck at the point you say "BET!".

I find it also amusing that a baccarat 'perfectionist' would ignore the chance to find leaks in his game. Seems kinda of imperfect to me. But it's not my money or my gambling wins/losses....

Quote: mickeycrimm

The only thing I know about baccarat is James Bond movies and what I read on Wizard of Odds. No edge for me so I leave it alone. Axelwolf doesn't fight probability. He makes it work for him. Having never met either of you the only thing I can go by is your respective posts, of which I've read many. Axelwolf is my kind of gambler. No offense, gr8player, but in comparing the two of you for sheer knowledge and skill as overall gamblers I have to tell you, my friend, that all you can do is eat Axelwolf's dust.

Hello, mickeycrimm.

Very nice, the way you've jumped your very own "AxelWolf bandwagon" here. Very nice.

And your "...eat AxelWolf's dust" comment, absolutely charming.

If, in fact, AxelWolf is half the AP that you're so intent on portraying for him just above, one wonders why he "chases my tail" as much as he does.

I mean...think about it...I get why Beethoven9th's and the EvenBob's follow me around, tagging all of my threads and most of my posts, for they've nothing better to do but to be disruptive to my efforts...but AxelWolf, who, according to you, is an able casino player...why would he be chasing my threads/posts?

Look, for instance, at me...I know what I have, as far as my Bac play goes, and I prove it, week in and week out, in the casinos...I haven't the time and much less the inclination to chase anyone's posts around here, for I'm just fine doin' my own thing.

To me, this forum (especially THIS forum) makes it rather easy to separate the "haves" from the "have nots", if you just use your head, and read a bit "between the lines". Try asking yourselves: What purpose does this member seek to serve with his/her particular post? You'll get rather adept at knowing where the truth lies around here, as opposed to, well, just the lies.

Quote: gr8player

You're way off base with this comment, MathExtremist.

My play has absolutely nothing to do with any "deck composition-dependent edge", and, no, I do not "keep track of the cards" values at any time. It appears to me that the only one that's "wrong nearly 100% of the time" might be you, given this erroneous assessment of my play.

You didn't comprehend what I wrote. I know your play doesn't have anything to do with the composition-dependent edge. But you claimed your play strategy gave you the ability to know when you had the best of it, and the way to test whether that is actually true is to compute the composition-dependent edge during a shoe when you believe that you have the edge, based on whatever trending you follow.

In other words, you'd just play through a shoe in your head or on paper, keeping your secret trending plays to yourself, and every once in a while you'd say "okay, I have the best of it on the next hand if I bet Banker". When that happens, the actual edge on Banker for the next hand can be computed and compared to your claim to "have the best of it". My guess still stands: you'd be wrong nearly 100% of the time.

But I also suspect that you'd never agree to quantify your intuitions like that. We both know how it would turn out.

Quote: MathExtremist

You didn't comprehend what I wrote. I know your play doesn't have anything to do with the composition-dependent edge. But you claimed your play strategy gave you the ability to know when you had the best of it, and the way to test whether that is actually true is to compute the composition-dependent edge during a shoe when you believe that you have the edge, based on whatever trending you follow.

In other words, you'd just play through a shoe in your head or on paper, keeping your secret trending plays to yourself, and every once in a while you'd say "okay, I have the best of it on the next hand if I bet Banker". When that happens, the actual edge on Banker for the next hand can be computed and compared to your claim to "have the best of it". My guess still stands: you'd be wrong nearly 100% of the time.

Are you serious with this commentary, MathExtremist? (Oh, and that includes you, thecesspit, as well...you guys cannot be serious.)

You're saying that you want to quantify my supposed edge, whenever I deem a play as having said edge, and thusly, would like to place a bet on it, by "computing the composition-dependent edge" at that point of the shoe????

I say it again to the both of you: Are you guys serious?

Wow. I definitely would have expected more from the two of you, as I've always had nothing but respect for your positions.

No wonder you stated, MathExtremist, that I'd "be wrong nearly 100% of the time". I would be. I could tell you that in advance. And here's why:

I can doing nothing...NOTHING...to change the casino's math. Their edge, no matter which hand of the shoe that I would choose, remains intact, obviously. How is that? Because they're paying my bets off at less than true odds. Always. Nothing I do will ever get them to pay me a penny more.

Happy now, fellas? You win, at least on this absolutely ridiculously bogus test you proposed that I could never ever pass.

You guys lost a lot with me just now...a lot. I don't like to be taken as a fool, and I would never to that to either of you. But your proposal sets me up as the fool, and I don't like it. Oh, I expect it from the Beethoven9th's and the EvenBob's, where they keep right on abusing my username by adding "gr8" in front of every foolish post in this site as the admins continue to allow that nonsense, but from the two of you I expected a mutual respect.

OK, with that out of the way, let's talk a bit more about my Baccarat reality:

I have an edge. It still exists, in spite of that nonsensical test.

My edge comes with the tracking of my statistics and my variances, and my bet-size manipulation relative to those stats and variances.

In other words, I know when I've got a better chance (read: an increased chance = a positive edge) to win. And I bet accordingly.

But to mistake that for changing the house's math....no, they're going to continue to under-pay me on every winning bet, so their roughly 1% remains intact. Only a fool would think otherwise, and only a fool would take your proposal seriously. In fact, I even take offense to it's presentation to me as a viable way to quantify my edge.

Only I can quantify my edge, and, when those instances arise where they prove positive, I BET ON IT. WITH AN INCREASED WAGER.

How's that for my "quantification"?

Gee, look who just posted?

Gee, have you never heard of a co-incidence ?

[Duplicate deleted]

One time is a coincidence. Umpteen times in a row is..........?!?!?!

Quote: gr8player

In other words, I know when I've got a better chance (read: an increased chance = a positive edge) to win. And I bet accordingly.

But to mistake that for changing the house's math....no, they're going to continue to under-pay me on every winning bet, so their roughly 1% remains intact. Only a fool would think otherwise, and only a fool would take your proposal seriously. In fact, I even take offense to it's presentation to me as a viable way to quantify my edge.

Only I can quantify my edge, and, when those instances arise where they prove positive, I BET ON IT. WITH AN INCREASED WAGER.

How's that for my "quantification"?

You still don't understand what I'm writing. I'm not trying to quantify your edge. I'm just trying to evaluate whether you are ever correct in "knowing that you have the best of it."

You write above that you "know when I've got a better chance (read: an increased chance = a positive edge) to win" and that "instances arise where they prove positive."

I believe you are wrong about that. The way to test that is to let you indicate when you think you have the better chance to win, and compare those indications with the actual chance to win on that hand.

But perhaps you don't even understand that? Do you understand and accept that the casino's edge can be calculated for a baccarat shoe immediately after it is shuffled? Do you also understand and accept that the casino's edge can be calculated for the remainder of a baccarat shoe after one hand has been dealt?

If so, then you should understand and accept that the casino's edge can be calculated on both Player and Banker for every hand in a shoe. So the test can be altered slightly:
1) A baccarat shoe is shuffled and played out. For each hand, the edge on the Banker and Player bets are computed. These will naturally fluctuate up and down over the course of the shoe as the cards come out. You are not permitted to know these numbers yet.
2) The shoe is put back in the same order and then you play through it however you want. All you have to do is use your system to identify which hands and which bets are "positive" (your words). Those identifications can then be compared to the precalculated house edge as determined in step 1.

If your system has any predictive value at all, you will be right some significant amount of the time. But I bet you won't be.

And feigning offense is just silly. There is nothing offensive about someone asking to examine an easily-examined claim. You say you know when have the edge, I say "show me." Go.

Quote: gr8player

Are you serious with this commentary, MathExtremist? (Oh, and that includes you, thecesspit, as well...you guys cannot be serious.)

You're saying that you want to quantify my supposed edge, whenever I deem a play as having said edge, and thusly, would like to place a bet on it, by "computing the composition-dependent edge" at that point of the shoe????

I don't want to place any bet on you or your play.

Quote:

I say it again to the both of you: Are you guys serious?

Wow. I definitely would have expected more from the two of you, as I've always had nothing but respect for your positions.

Well, sadly, this overly defensive posture is what I expected from you. I was hoping that ME's explanation was crystal clear, as he's much better at exposition than I am.

Quote:

No wonder you stated, MathExtremist, that I'd "be wrong nearly 100% of the time". I would be. I could tell you that in advance. And here's why:

I can doing nothing...NOTHING...to change the casino's math. Their edge, no matter which hand of the shoe that I would choose, remains intact, obviously. How is that? Because they're paying my bets off at less than true odds. Always. Nothing I do will ever get them to pay me a penny more.

You start your non-sequitir right here. If the casino always has an edge on every hand then....

Quote:

My edge comes with the tracking of my statistics and my variances, and my bet-size manipulation relative to those stats and variances.

This statement can not be true.

Quote:

In other words, I know when I've got a better chance (read: an increased chance = a positive edge) to win. And I bet accordingly.

Nor can this one.

If you have a better chance, then at the point you say bet you have to have a positive edge? Right? So the casino cannot have an edge on every hand. It's not logical that YOU can have an edge and the casino can have an edge at the same time.

Your tracking of variance uses the same math the casino uses. The Math is just a model. If you can expose where the model is incorrect, then of course the statements made can go out of the window.

Quote:

Only I can quantify my edge, and, when those instances arise where they prove positive, I BET ON IT. WITH AN INCREASED WAGER.

Special pleading is a logical fallacy, not an argument of proof.

Quote: MathExtremist

But perhaps you don't even understand that? Do you understand and accept that the casino's edge can be calculated for a baccarat shoe immediately after it is shuffled? Do you also understand and accept that the casino's edge can be calculated for the remainder of a baccarat shoe after one hand has been dealt?

You, my friend, are so very wrong. But I haven't the time nor the inclination to explain it to you.

Believe as you will...

Quote: thecesspit

If you have a better chance, then at the point you say bet you have to have a positive edge? Right? So the casino cannot have an edge on every hand. It's not logical that YOU can have an edge and the casino can have an edge at the same time.

Your tracking of variance uses the same math the casino uses. The Math is just a model. If you can expose where the model is incorrect, then of course the statements made can go out of the window.

The casino's edge is calculable, and (shh...don't tell MathExtremist) remains a constant on each and every hand dealt.

My edge is, for lack of a better term, a lot less calculable.

If that makes the two of you feel better about yourselves, I'll sleep peacefully tonight. Maybe not as peacefully as the two of you, but....

Quote: gr8player

You, my friend, are so very wrong. But I haven't the time nor the inclination to explain it to you.

By that argument, I conclude that you deny that the probability of a banker or player win can be calculated at all. This is, presumably, the way you intend to avoid addressing your mythical abilities to be able to know when you have the edge. It was my mistake in assuming that when you said "you know when you have the edge", that you were actually talking about the quantifiable house edge rather than some intuitive feeling known only to you. I've no interest in examining your own personal definitions when they don't correspond to reality.

If you actually want to investigate whether and how often you are correct about having an edge -- as that term is commonly understood by everyone else -- just say so. That's easy enough to do. But otherwise, I'll leave you to your own exercises in redefining what it means to "have the best of it."

Quote: gr8player

The casino's edge is calculable, and (shh...don't tell MathExtremist) remains a constant on each and ever hand dealt.

My edge is, for lack of a better term, a lot less calculable.

I see the problem. First, you're wrong that the house edge remains constant on each hand. The effects of deck depletion are very real. They are what enable card counting in blackjack, though that doesn't work to the same degree in baccarat. Second, your edge is the additive inverse of the casino's edge. In other words, if the casino has an edge of 1%, you have an edge of -1%. The sum is zero. They are effectively the same thing, just phrased differently. There is no separate "player edge" from "casino edge". Think about what that would mean otherwise -- if the casino edge and player edge don't cancel each other out, where does the extra money come from or disappear to?

As I have already deduced, you mean something other than this when you say "you have the edge," but your redefinition of what "edge" means is not useful. In the future, I recommend sticking with universally-accepted definitions for things like "the edge" or "having the best of it." It will avoid confusion as to what you're trying to communicate.

Quote: MathExtremist

I see the problem.

Hmmm...all due respect, no, you don't.

The problem is that the house edge remains constant, in spite of any "deck depletion". (The change, if any, would be at the very end of the shoe and, even then, so minute as to be rendered useless.)

You see, my friend, the unique drawing rules of Baccarat renders card composition virtually meaningless.

I trust that now you might actually recognize that is the crux of the problem regarding your posted proposal. Nothing changes the house edge...not card composition, not card depletion, not, in fact, my play...the house edge stands unfettered.

So if one cannot come up with a way to counteract it, negate it, heck...overcome it, they'd be best served to take up with the Mario Brothers for entertainment.

Quote: gr8player

Hmmm...all due respect, no, you don't.

The problem is that the house edge remains constant, in spite of any "deck depletion". (The change, if any, would be at the very end of the shoe and, even then, so minute as to be rendered useless.)

Bzzt. It doesn't. It's a pretty small change. But it does happen.

If the house edge remains constant, then the lack of player edge remains constant. Therefore no hand of yours ever has 'the best of it'. Funnily, we have proven it.

You cannot use the 'variances' to identifiy when to increase the bet and then claim this to be to your advantage. Variance comes from the same nature of the probabilities of the shoe. You can't use one half of the science of probability, reject or ignore the other half and claim it works.

Thus your whole logical edifice is built upon rotten bricks and shaky foundations. A = B and A != B cannot be true at the same time, and you've repeatedly declared it to be so.

There's little further point in discussion. Your system is holed below the water line, and no amount of bilge pumping will make it recover.

Good luck, sir, and good day.

Quote: gr8player

I trust that now you might actually recognize that is the crux of the problem regarding your posted proposal. Nothing changes the house edge...not card composition, not card depletion, not, in fact, my play...the house edge stands unfettered.

Indeed, the problem is that you reject the correct meaning of "edge" and believe that somehow, both you and the casino can simultaneously have "the edge" on a particular hand. More specifically, you believe that the house edge is constant (it isn't, but that doesn't really matter here) but that you have a different "edge" that is somehow variable. It isn't. The player edge on any given hand is exactly -1 times the house edge, and in all cases the house edge plus the player edge is zero. It's like talking about a casino die and saying "three is face-up" vs. "four is face-down." Those are just two different ways of communicating the same thing.

As before, I advise you to stop trying to redefine "edge" and to communicate using commonly-accepted definitions. I recommend that you replace what you've been calling "edge" with "mojo" or "juju." For example: you feel that you have the juju and you back that up with a bigger bet. That sentence now makes sense, and it's not controversial: you're waiting for a feeling that you should make a certain bet. But what doesn't make sense is suggesting, as you have, that you have the edge and that you back that up with a bigger bet, because you have already admitted that the house edge doesn't change.

Damn, Cess & ME are using their Ginsu knives to slice & dice your arguments, teacher. This is really embarrassing. In fact, it's so bad it makes me depressed!

Please concentrate, teacher, and let's show the whole forum who the world's foremost expert on everything baccarat really is!

Quote: gr8player

Hello, mickeycrimm.

Very nice, the way you've jumped your very own "AxelWolf bandwagon" here. Very nice.

And your "...eat AxelWolf's dust" comment, absolutely charming.

If, in fact, AxelWolf is half the AP that you're so intent on portraying for him just above, one wonders why he "chases my tail" as much as he does.

I mean...think about it...I get why Beethoven9th's and the EvenBob's follow me around, tagging all of my threads and most of my posts, for they've nothing better to do but to be disruptive to my efforts...but AxelWolf, who, according to you, is an able casino player...why would he be chasing my threads/posts?

Look, for instance, at me...I know what I have, as far as my Bac play goes, and I prove it, week in and week out, in the casinos...I haven't the time and much less the inclination to chase anyone's posts around here, for I'm just fine doin' my own thing.

To me, this forum (especially THIS forum) makes it rather easy to separate the "haves" from the "have nots", if you just use your head, and read a bit "between the lines". Try asking yourselves: What purpose does this member seek to serve with his/her particular post? You'll get rather adept at knowing where the truth lies around here, as opposed to, well, just the lies.

I'm on the AxelWolf bandwagon for one reason, respect. Though I've never met him I've known of him for 17 years. Him and his partners are legends in the Nevada AP community. They HAVE BEEN for 20 years. I even seen them on a play once when I was a fledgling AP. It was about 1998. They came into the Riverside/Laughlin on a two machine $5 denom 8/5 Jacks progressive play when the meter hit $42,000. Twenty-Four hours later the royal and the crew were gone. Must be nice, I thought to myself. They came in every time that meter hit $42,000. I guess you don't understand the beauty of that play, but I do. I had the pleasure of meeting one of his partners at the Pioneer/Laughlin on a big promotion in 2002. They are a sharp gambling bunch.

Axelwolf is not "chasing your tail." He's disagreeing with you, as many others have. If you think that those who know better are gonna keep their mouth shut while you disseminate unsound gambling theory, then you are mistaken. Did you really expect to come onto Wizard of Vegas, tell us all that you know how to consistently beat a negative expectation game, and expect to go unchallenged by the AP's and the degree'd mathematicains on this site?

You are not the first to do this, gr8player. It's been going on since time immemorial. A person comes on a site, spouts illogical gambling theory, gets challenged by many, develops a siege mentality, then insists he's being picked on. But you guys never put up any proof, EVER. We're just supposed to BELIEVE YOU. BTW, gr8player, those asking you to put up proof are either being nice or setting a trap. They already know you CAN'T put up any proof.

So why should AP's care about your spouting illogical gambling theory to the world? Your gambling theory has no chance to damage us because we flat out already know better. Some people think that AP's are cold, heartless people, that will just rape, pillage and plunder. But that's not the case. We have to challenge you because of the potential damage your gambling theory can do to the unknowing, the up and coming, those who haven't yet matured in the gambling game.

I expect that if you respond to this post it will be just like your responses to others who disagree with you. Nothing but smoke and mirrors.

^^^^^^^^^^^^
+250,000

Quote: mickeycrimm

We have to challenge you because of the potential damage your gambling theory can do to the unknowing, the up and coming, those who haven't yet matured in the gambling game.

The entire post above mine is right on the money, but I have to single out this sentence because many people on WoV keeping saying, "Oh, leave gr8player alone. He's not hurting anybody!"

Bull.....loney! If even one unsuspecting player ends up losing money because of his gambling nonsense, then he has hurt somebody!

Quote: mickeycrimm

We have to challenge you because of the potential damage your gambling theory can do to the unknowing, the up and coming, those who haven't yet matured in the gambling game.

+5 quadrillion

Quote: Beethoven9th

Damn, Cess & ME are using their Ginsu knives to slice & dice your arguments, teacher. This is really embarrassing. In fact, it's so bad it makes me depressed!

Please concentrate, teacher, and let's show the whole forum who the world's foremost expert on everything baccarat really is!

LOL

Quote: Beethoven9th

Damn, Cess & ME are using their Ginsu knives to slice & dice your arguments, teacher. This is really embarrassing. In fact, it's so bad it makes me depressed!

Please concentrate, teacher, and let's show the whole forum who the world's foremost expert on everything baccarat really is!

LOL

Quote: mickeycrimm

So why should AP's care about your spouting illogical gambling theory to the world? Your gambling theory has no chance to damage us because we flat out already know better. Some people think that AP's are cold, heartless people, that will just rape, pillage and plunder. But that's not the case. We have to challenge you because of the potential damage your gambling theory can do to the unknowing, the up and coming, those who haven't yet matured in the gambling game.

I expect that if you respond to this post it will be just like your responses to others who disagree with you. Nothing but smoke and mirrors.

well said.
AP's do have a heart. It may be green, but it's a heart none the less