Desperately Seeking Baccarat
Quote: thecesspitYou 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.
No? Why not?
Why are you restricting the use of variance? I certainly don't. I use it in my play. In more ways than one.
That, my friend, is the very difference between those that actually play this game with a winning purpose in usage and in mind, and those that view this game from afar (i.e. their computer desks). The numbers...their numbers...work only in the favor of the casino. Period. Case closed.
I contend that, in actual casino play, those numbers...your numbers...can be neutralized or, dare I say, overcome.
Assuming, of course, "correct" play.
Oh yes, I know, "correct" play? There is only "play"...there is no such thing as "correct" play. Right, fellas?
There's where your numbers fail you...you assume everyone approaches and plays this game with total similarity.
One word: Nope.
Stay well, my friend.
Quote: mickeycrimmSo 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.
Hello again, mickeycrimm.
So very nice of you to be concerned with the "unknowing, the up and coming, and the immature"...I, too, never forget the possible reaches of my posts. That is why I comport myself as I do, as a gentleman. I am a reflection of my posts, and I stand by, proudly I might add, each and every one of them.
I do not post anywhere but on gaming forums. I wish not to entice anyone to gamble. I wish only to assist those that would do so anyhow, by posting my theories and approaches and plays. I would ask anyone to read the entirety of my threads/posts. One will read much about conservative play, all peppered with the very necessary patience and discipline and bankroll preservation tactics.
My doing harm in this forum, mickeycrimm? You would be much better served, in that crusade, by pointing fingers elsewhere, my friend. I could give you a list of usernames in this very forum that should be relegated to the opposite side of that accusing finger...hint...mine would not be one of them.
Lastly, as to your "smoke and mirrors" comment:
It's only "smoke and mirrors" to those that choose to view it within that darkness. Your choice...comprehend what I am conveying, or not...but to project the blame for your own choice onto me is, IMHO, misdirected.
Stay well, mickeycrimm.
Quote: gr8playerWhy are you restricting the use of variance? I certainly don't. I use it in my play.
You appear to have redefined "variance" (as you previously redefined "edge") to mean something other than what it actually means. Variance is a statistical measure of the spread or dispersion of a probability distribution. It is a well-defined concept and is calculable, just as the edge (expected value) is. You have rejected both of these concepts and, frankly, are just making up your own terms as you see fit.
If you had the desire, you could educate yourself on descriptive statistics for probability distributions. For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variance
Or you could continue to believe that somehow mathematics doesn't apply to you if you just refuse to accept its language. You'd be wrong, but it turns out not to matter. You can't beat the player or banker bets by examining past trends regardless of what terms you use to describe your play strategy. And the casino knows it. The cards don't know what you're thinking and they don't know what you're saying. They don't care whether you properly use mathematical terms or just make up new ones. They are inanimate objects, randomized by either a human or mechanical shuffle. Unless you know enough information about the cards that are coming next, you can never know if (or when) you have the edge in baccarat. Ever.
Quote: MathExtremistYou appear to have redefined "variance" (as you previously redefined "edge") to mean something other than what it actually means. Variance is a statistical measure of the spread or dispersion of a probability distribution.
I seek not to "redefine" anything, MathExtremist. I, too, use the "statistical measure of the spread or dispersion of probability"...I use it religiously.
I use it for my purposes.
That is my contention. That the math, can, in fact, work more ways than one if one were so very inclined to produce their play(s) in that regard.
Might be best to agree to disagree on some points, but, even with that said, I appreciate your respective responses.
Look, fellas, I wish no conflict in this forum, for I'm quite certain that I'm holding the short end of the stick as it pertains to our admins. I enjoy posting, when I am able to, in this forum, and, for the most part, I've respect for many members, not the least of which are both thecesspit and MathExtremist. There are many knowledgeable members in this forum, and we should feel advantaged with their presence and their posts; we all needn't agree on every subject, just so long as we remain respectful responders/members.
I, myself, have learned a lot in this forum. I might not respond to all threads and all posts, but I read as much as time permits, and the quality of this forum appears prime.
If only we can keep it that way.....
Quote: gr8playerNo? Why not?
Why are you restricting the use of variance? I certainly don't. I use it in my play. In more ways than one.
I am not restricting the use of variance. I am telling you, you can't use variance then choose to ignore expected value. You can't half use the tools in the box, and ignore the others that don't give you results you like. Or discard them.
Quote:That, my friend, is the very difference between those that actually play this game with a winning purpose in usage and in mind, and those that view this game from afar (i.e. their computer desks). The numbers...their numbers...work only in the favor of the casino. Period. Case closed.
Ah, the special pleading that casino makes a difference.
Quote:I contend that, in actual casino play, those numbers...your numbers...can be neutralized or, dare I say, overcome.
Assuming, of course, "correct" play.
Your contention is noted. Your lack of anything resembling a proof of that contention is also noted. I don't care if you win every day or 50% of the time or make a profit in the casino. That doesn't prove your contention when it comes to the mathematical models.
I contend you don't use 'variance' correctly, and again see a lack of any such use of the tool in anything like the correct way to use it to tell you what it really means.
I won't say how I think you are using it, because it might be wrong, or you'll take offence. But reading between the lines (as you keep telling us, you've provided your method), I have an inkling, and well... that dog won't hunt very well for me.
Quote:Oh yes, I know, "correct" play? There is only "play"...there is no such thing as "correct" play. Right, fellas?
There's where your numbers fail you...you assume everyone approaches and plays this game with total similarity.
No, actually I don't. I also don't believe there is 'correct' play without proof that you have the advantage on a particular play.
Quote:
One word: Nope.
I finally agree with you.
Quote:Stay well, my friend.
Good day, good luck. I've spent enough time with this.
Exactly...LOL! (This guy has been arguing with people about his 'system' for SEVEN years now)Quote: IbeatyouracesAgain, if it really worked, why come here and argue it? Just go DO IT!
Gr8player you seem to spend as much time behind your computer screen as everyone, probably more. Guys like mickeycrimm are out playing and are PROVEN WINNERS, They can SHOW you and explain EXACTLY how to win. They don't hide behind computers and use mystical forces.Quote: gr8playerNo? Why not?
Why are you restricting the use of variance? I certainly don't. I use it in my play. In more ways than one.
That, my friend, is the very difference between those that actually play this game with a winning purpose in usage and in mind, and those that view this game from afar (i.e. their computer desks). The numbers...their numbers...work only in the favor of the casino. Period. Case closed.
I contend that, in actual casino play, those numbers...your numbers...can be neutralized or, dare I say, overcome.
Assuming, of course, "correct" play.
Oh yes, I know, "correct" play? There is only "play"...there is no such thing as "correct" play. Right, fellas?
There's where your numbers fail you...you assume everyone approaches and plays this game with total similarity.
One word: Nope.
Stay well, my friend.
I have a feeling if someone challenged mickeycrimm's claims he would be willing to PROVE it not just mathematically but in actuality. You wont even let anyone observe your play. Dont feed me a line of BS, about not wanting people to know your system, if that was the case you would not be yammering on about it here daily.
Over, and over, and over again, you Talk, and talk, and talk ....... but say nothing.... meanwhile, you evade whats really important, explain how you win.
Hope your baccarat stories are more valid than the above statement !
I asked him this on day 1, 2 ,3, 4 and 200. let me awnser for him since varm used to answer for him occasionallyQuote: IbeatyouracesAgain, if it really worked, why come here and argue it? Just go DO IT!
Because he simply wants to discuss baccarat with other like minded people, and perhaps improve his on own style of play
the real question is, why do WE keep discussing it with him, when we ALL know its bunk?
I guess we all need our daily dose of insanity
Baccarat and Craps are the same deal. Just because you see a number of bankers in a row doesn't mean that the next hand will be player. Martingaling on the player side EVENTUALLY will fail calamatously because the variance will not return to normal for that session. In otherwords, if you see 8 players in a row, the odds of the next hand being banker is still 45.86% overall. It doesn't get higher. The only way that the odds fluctuate is via card removal, and seeing a number of players in a row doesn't correlate with the odds pushing to banker.
But Bacarrat is like that. The HE is so low that there might be 10 players who play the same system that gr8players does on 10 different tables. 9 of them will not have success, and one of them will write all over a forum about it thinking that their system is successful, because for them, it is.
But mathematically it's not. He has no mathematical proof. A betting system should be programmatical. That is, you should be able to input the betting system into a computer program, be able to play out millions of shoes, and show the effect. So, let's see the betting system. What do you play after or before each result? How much do you bet? What is your system. That would allow the brilliant minds of teliot and mathextremist to throw the system into a program and see how it turns out.
And why wouldn't anyone be interesting in seeing the result? Unless you believe that the cards are not random or have magical properties, you gotta accept that a computer simulation should be able to replicate the cards.
Give us your system, or at least, PM it to someone. Then it can be put to the test.
Quote: AxelWolfGuys like mickeycrimm are out playing and are PROVEN WINNERS, They can SHOW you and explain EXACTLY how to win. They don't hide behind computers and use mystical forces.
I have a feeling if someone challenged mickeycrimm's claims he would be willing to PROVE it not just mathematically but in actuality.
Proven winners are winners for a reason. They have the edge, they can quantify it, and they invest (note: not "gamble") accordingly. In that context, understanding both variance and edge are paramount for making the proper investments. That's true for any investor in any investment. And while it's certainly true that not all APs fully understand variance and bankroll risk, the best ones do.
Quote: AxelWolfOver, and over, and over again, you Talk, and talk, and talk ....... but say nothing.... meanwhile, you evade whats really important, explain how you win.
He's already done that. He is "a confirmed Baccarat 'trender'" (see the OP). Stripping aside all the mumbo-jumbo about trends and how he has an edge that is independent of the casino's and how he "uses" variance and how he can "neutralize or, dare I say, overcome" the house edge, you're left with this:
He gets lucky enough to win the few big bets he makes in his progression, and the winnings from those few big bets usually but not always wipe out the losses he's had in the sequence until then. It's just another betting system like the Martingale. It doesn't change or "overcome" the edge, and he needs to rely on good luck -- winning some of those big bets -- to get ahead.
That's the difference between a systems player and an AP. A systems player needs to rely on good luck (better than average results) to get ahead. An AP just needs to avoid bad luck.
Quote: thecesspitYour contention is noted. Your lack of anything resembling a proof of that contention is also noted. I don't care if you win every day or 50% of the time or make a profit in the casino. That doesn't prove your contention when it comes to the mathematical models.
I won't say how I think you are using it, because it might be wrong, or you'll take offence. But reading between the lines (as you keep telling us, you've provided your method), I have an inkling, and well... that dog won't hunt very well for me.
But it does for me.
And I know the inherent frustration of being virtually unable to prove, at least mathematically, my hypothesis.
Again I do thank MathExtremist and thecesspit for both their interest and their patience. I've learned from the both of them, and I appreciate their efforts.
seriously, I can't read through all his long winded mumbo-jumbo.Quote: MathExtremistProven winners are winners for a reason. They have the edge, they can quantify it, and they invest (note: not "gamble") accordingly. In that context, understanding both variance and edge are paramount for making the proper investments. That's true for any investor in any investment. And while it's certainly true that not all APs fully understand variance and bankroll risk, the best ones do.
He's already done that. He is "a confirmed Baccarat 'trender'" (see the OP). Stripping aside all the mumbo-jumbo about trends and how he has an edge that is independent of the casino's and how he "uses" variance and how he can "neutralize or, dare I say, overcome" the house edge, you're left with this:
He gets lucky enough to win the few big bets he makes in his progression, and the winnings from those few big bets usually but not always wipe out the losses he's had in the sequence until then. It's just another betting system like the Martingale. It doesn't change or "overcome" the edge, and he needs to rely on good luck -- winning some of those big bets -- to get ahead.
That's the difference between a systems player and an AP. A systems player needs to rely on good luck (better than average results) to get ahead. An AP just needs to avoid bad luck.
Quote: boymimbogr8player works on variances and returns to "normal" to adjust for his betting. That, in the heart, is his betting system. It's quite akin to seeing 8 heads in a row and betting on tails because the variance says that's what to do and that somehow, the odds of the next head coming up is not 50%. But it is.
...
Give us your system, or at least, PM it to someone. Then it can be put to the test.
No, no, no. Nobody needs to test his system. I'm certainly not going to unless he hires me, but he won't, and I've got real work to do anyway. There is nothing different about his system than any other betting system ever devised.
The totality of the information he relies on to determine the amount and location of his next wager is the prior results in the baccarat shoe. That information has already been demonstrated to be practically independent of the subsequent result. If he relied on some knowledge about the positions or distribution of future cards in the shoe, he may have the edge. Phil Ivey recently made a lot of money with such information. But without sufficient information about the cards remaining in the shoe, neither gr8player nor anyone else can have a mathematical edge in baccarat. It doesn't matter who you are, what you believe, how many trends you write down on a slip of paper, or how many times you misuse mathematical terms in attempting to argue otherwise.
Well then your system ONLY works for YOU. It wont work for anyone other then you, so there is no use to talk about it.Quote: gr8playerBut it does for me.
And I know the inherent frustration of being virtually unable to prove, at least mathematically, my hypothesis.
Again I do thank MathExtremist and thecesspit for both their interest and their patience. I've learned from the both of them, and I appreciate their efforts.
Quote: IbeatyouracesAgain, if it really worked, why come here and argue it? Just go DO IT!
I do, Ibeatyouraces. I'm either in AC or CT every Thursday night and Friday afternoon. Sometimes on Sundays, as well. All other days are work days, for me.
I come here not to argue, I come here not to brag, I come here not to gloat.
I haven't the cure for cancer.
I play Baccarat. I have a method of play that works very well for me, mostly because I have a long term view of this game, and my approach is tailored and built accordingly. (Read: approach = bet selection and money management all dependent on my variance stats)
In the end, when all is said and done, it's just a Baccarat game. No big deal (pardon the pun).
Quote: Buzzard" I'm quite certain that I'm holding the short end of the stick as it pertains to our admins. "
Hope your baccarat stories are more valid than the above statement !
Really, Buzzard?
There's no secret about Mission's stance regarding my posting in this forum. He's banned me twice, and forbidden me to author any new threads.
I think its rather clear....
I don't understand.... with all the money you make from Baccarat, why you still work? Why not let someone watch you play?Quote: gr8playerI do, Ibeatyouraces. I'm either in AC or CT every Thursday night and Friday afternoon. Sometimes on Sundays, as well. All other days are work days, for me.
.
Quote: AxelWolf...the real question is, why do WE keep discussing it with him, when we ALL know its bunk?
Discuss it, AxelWolf? Now there's a stretch of a definition if there ever was one.
MathExtremist and thecesspit and fellas like those...they "discuss" it.
You, Betthoven9th, EvenBob, and fellas like yourselves...all they wish to do is knock both the method and the person behind it.
Discussion, my friend, is in limited supply around this forum, but the flaming and the inciting...in complete abundance.
Shame, really....
Quote: gr8playerReally, Buzzard?
There's no secret about Mission's stance regarding my posting in this forum. He's banned me twice, and forbidden me to author any new threads.
I think its rather clear....
What is clear is that you are still here. Blaming Mission is like the guy who killed his parents asking for mercy because he is an orphan.
Quote: boymimboGive us your system, or at least, PM it to someone. Then it can be put to the test.
You don't get it. HE WILL NOT DO SO. (He's been talking like this for SEVEN freakin' years now and isn't going to stop any time soon)
Quote: MathExtremistHe's already done that. He is "a confirmed Baccarat 'trender'" (see the OP). Stripping aside all the mumbo-jumbo about trends and how he has an edge that is independent of the casino's and how he "uses" variance and how he can "neutralize or, dare I say, overcome" the house edge, you're left with this:
He gets lucky enough to win the few big bets he makes in his progression, and the winnings from those few big bets usually but not always wipe out the losses he's had in the sequence until then. It's just another betting system like the Martingale. It doesn't change or "overcome" the edge, and he needs to rely on good luck -- winning some of those big bets -- to get ahead.
Hello, MathExtremist.
For all your knowledge, and it bears noting that I've all the respect in the world for it, you're so far off base here that it virtually serves as an embarrassment for you.
I am not a Martingaler. Nothing close.
I raise my bets when my variance calls for such increase, but only after "confirmation of correction". I don't chase. I take my time, and I do it right.
Big difference from your portrayal of a gambler trying to get the better of the casino by mounting his bets higher and higher. We all know where that leads.
Quote: AxelWolfWell then your system ONLY works for YOU. It wont work for anyone other then you, so there is no use to talk about it.
The theories, the approaches, the patience and discipline and bankroll conservation and conservative and realistic win/loss goals.....all invaluable insights.....
.....c'mon, man, does anyone around here even play in a live casino?...with real money?.....
Quote: BuzzardNo big deal (pardon the pun). No big profit ( pardon the truth).
You're right, Buzzard. "No big profit".
I choose the view of protection of my downside and thusly allowing the upside to take care of itself.
That's why my Bac play and MM is so "recoup orientated".
You see, if I am successful in "loss eradication" (read: recoup) after those tougher-than-usual sessions, where does that leave the money from the relatively easy sessions?
Oh, yeah...in my pocket.
Quote: gr8playerHello, MathExtremist.
I raise my bets when my variance calls for such increase, but only after "confirmation of correction". I don't chase. I take my time, and I do it right.
Big difference from your portrayal of a gambler trying to get the better of the casino by mounting his bets higher and higher. We all know where that leads.
I think I'm starting to get it. I remember this deaf ,dumb, and blind kid and a remarkable talent with pinball. Does this "confirmation of correction" have anything to do with your sence of smell?
Quote: BuzzardWhat is clear is that you are still here. Blaming Mission is like the guy who killed his parents asking for mercy because he is an orphan.
"Blaming Mission"?
I blame no one. I am a man visiting a forum. My rights end right there, at the door. I am owed nothing, and seek no favors.
I ask only for fairness.
No, go back through my threads, and do some reading. Read my posts and then read the respondents' posts.
Then see if you think I've been treated fairly around here.
Quote: Sabretom2I think I'm starting to get it. I remember this deaf ,dumb, and blind kid and a remarkable talent with pinball. Does this "confirmation of correction" have anything to do with your seance of smell?
I'll respond, even though the true nature of your response is not lost on me.
My confirmation is important, because then I can adjust my bets for an impending upturn in my variance stats for that particular trend.
I already did that. You have been treated more than FAIR.
Quote: gr8playerI am not a Martingaler. Nothing close.
I raise my bets when my variance calls for such increase, but only after "confirmation of correction". I don't chase. I take my time, and I do it right.
Big difference from your portrayal of a gambler trying to get the better of the casino by mounting his bets higher and higher. We all know where that leads.
Unfortunately, you appear to be arguing with yourself:
Quote: gr8player, two posts laterI choose the view of protection of my downside and thusly allowing the upside to take care of itself.
That's why my Bac play and MM is so "recoup orientated".
You see, if I am successful in "loss eradication" (read: recoup) after those tougher-than-usual sessions...
Quote: gr8player, several posts afterwardsMy confirmation is important, because then I can adjust my bets for an impending upturn in my variance stats for that particular trend
In short, you adjust your bets after (a) you've spotted a trend and (b) you're behind, so you can recoup. That's a negative betting progression, negative meaning you bet more when you're behind. The Martingale is also a negative betting progression. The only difference between the Martingale and your play strategy is when you raise your bets. In your system, the bet is increased after a plurality of losses and after you've observed some sequence of prior results (which, as before, are not predictive of the future). In the Martingale, the bet is increased after a single loss. That's the only difference, and it's a relatively minor one. Play a negative progression if you want, but don't pretend it gives you the edge.
Quote: gr8player.....c'mon, man, does anyone around here even play in a live casino?...with real money?.....
Yep, all the time.
Quote: AxelWolfI don't understand.... with all the money you make from Baccarat, why you still work? Why not let someone watch you play?
Firstly, I don't make a lot of money at Baccarat. I grind out a profit. A relatively small profit. After my expenses, my wins are in the hundreds. Heck..I used to have a 1,000 win goal for each session...I've become much more conservative when I realized that I'd save a whole lotta stress that way. After a while, AxelWolf, you come to realize that the money isn't as important as the winning, no matter the size, is. And when you consider that roughly half of the time you're approaching "recoup mode", it's so much less stressful when its in smaller increments.
Now, understand...stress matters to a player such as myself, because I'm only a weekly player. In other words, if I've got to hold off my recoup mode until next Thursday night after last Friday's loss, it's a bit more stressful when I've got to "carry-over" thousands as opposed to hundreds. I trust you understand what I'm saying, AxelWolf.
Lastly, plenty of people in AC and CT "watch me play". I'm playing for years, and I've built up, over that time, a bit of a reputation for myself. There are players that'll follow me when I play, and mimic my bets, as well. But those are people that have come to know me over the years. I've no desire to make any new Baccarat acquaintances, no offence. Especially from the internet. For obvious reasons....
Quote: MathExtremistIn short, you adjust your bets after (a) you've spotted a trend and (b) you're behind, so you can recoup. That's a negative betting progression, negative meaning you bet more when you're behind. The Martingale is also a negative betting progression. The only difference between the Martingale and your play strategy is when you raise your bets. In your system, the bet is increased after a plurality of losses and after you've observed some sequence of prior results (which, as before, are not predictive of the future). In the Martingale, the bet is increased after a single loss. That's the only difference, and it's a relatively minor one. Play a negative progression if you want, but don't pretend it gives you the edge.
In actuality, MathExtremist, I play a combination of both. I play a version of my "Gr8Player's Progression" (google it if interested) combined with some parlays, be them either half- or full-parlays.
I do not pretend that any one singular part of my entire process will give me an edge; my contention is that my play, in its entirety, will suffice. The whole of the parts is greater than.....oh, you get my drift.
Quote: gr8player
There's no secret about Mission's stance regarding my posting in this forum. He's banned me twice, and forbidden me to author any new threads.
That's not true, I don't mind you voicing your opinion of my action towards you, but at least stick to truthful statements. You may not create any new threads pertaining to your Baccarat system, unless you plan to explain, in specificity, exactly what it is. You may post threads on any other topic.
Quote: gr8playerI do not pretend that any one singular part of my entire process will give me an edge; my contention is that my play, in its entirety, will suffice. The whole of the parts is greater than.....oh, you get my drift.
Just like the old retail joke: "we lose money on every sale but we make it up on volume."
gr8player" I've no desire to make any new Baccarat acquaintances"Quote: gr8playerFirstly, I don't make a lot of money at Baccarat. I grind out a profit. A relatively small profit. After my expenses, my wins are in the hundreds. Heck..I used to have a 1,000 win goal for each session...I've become much more conservative when I realized that I'd save a whole lotta stress that way. After a while, AxelWolf, you come to realize that the money isn't as important as the winning, no matter the size, is. And when you consider that roughly half of the time you're approaching "recoup mode", it's so much less stressful when its in smaller increments.
Now, understand...stress matters to a player such as myself, because I'm only a weekly player. In other words, if I've got to hold off my recoup mode until next Thursday night after last Friday's loss, it's a bit more stressful when I've got to "carry-over" thousands as opposed to hundreds. I trust you understand what I'm saying, AxelWolf.
Lastly, plenty of people in AC and CT "watch me play". I'm playing for years, and I've built up, over that time, a bit of a reputation for myself. There are players that'll follow me when I play, and mimic my bets, as well. But those are people that have come to know me over the years. I've no desire to make any new Baccarat acquaintances, no offence. Especially from the internet. For obvious reasons....
AxelWolf: ok... then you have plenty of people to discuss BAC with, why come here "Especially ON the internet"?
No matter what you say its obvious you want people to believe you can win at BAC and possibility want a tad bit of respect, since you cant prove it mathematically, nor can you prove you even play at all. I thought you could take one small step and prove your even in casinos playing and possibly winning. I simply offered to to aid you in that, by coming and observing.(A guy that really plays in a casino, I have lived in Vegas since 199O and gambling since 1993) I'm not out to get you, I have explained this before to Varm and you, I know some high profile poker players and gamblers, I would be willing to let you verify my reputation including giving you my real name and address links to my Facebook and whatever would make you feel safe. That would go along way and help further your credibility and the BAC discussion. You really have nothing to lose by doing so. unless you have something to hide.
Quote: MathExtremistJust like the old retail joke: "we lose money on every sale but we make it up on volume."
Some of the sagest things are said in jest, my friend.
I face the worst of it with every bet I make, namely, the house edge, as I'm paid at less than the true odds.
But, even given that, I am able to manipulate my bets (both placement- and size-wise) in such a way as to make it all come to a good resolution for me, over the long run.
Does it work at each bet I make? No.
Do I know exactly when it will work? No.
Do I lose occasionally? Yes.
Is my method fail-proof? No.
Is there anything I can do to better my method? I truly do not think so. The casino has it over me in every way...total dollars and mathematics...I can do no more than I am doing now. I don't think anyone could do any more than I've accomplished up to this point. If, in fact, my method does tank, I will do two things immediately:
1. I'll report it right here in this forum.
2. I will cease playing this game.
Stay tuned...I'll be there again tomorrow night, and I'm adjusting my bet size upwards a bit due to last Friday's variance dip and resulting loss.
Quote: AxelWolfgr8player" I've no desire to make any new Baccarat acquaintances"
AxelWolf: ok... then you have plenty of people to discuss BAC with, why come here "Especially ON the internet"?
No matter what you say its obvious you want people to believe you can win at BAC and possibility want a tad bit of respect, since you cant prove it mathematically, nor can you prove you even play at all. I thought you could take one small step and prove your even in casinos playing and possibly winning. I simply offered to to aid you in that, by coming and observing.(A guy that really plays in a casino, I have lived in Vegas since 199O and gambling since 1993) I'm not out to get you, I have explained this before to Varm and you, I know some high profile poker players and gamblers, I would be willing to let you verify my reputation including giving you my real name and address links to my Facebook and whatever would make you feel safe. That would go along way and help further your credibility and the BAC discussion. You really have nothing to lose by doing so. unless you have something to hide.
AxelWolf, give it up already. I need no partners. I need no new Baccarat friends. I've nothing to gain from your attendance, and, BTW, yes I do indeed "have something to hide"...'nuff said 'bout that.
Quote: gr8playerI face the worst of it with every bet I make
Quote: gr8player, two days agoI know when I'm getting the better of it
"Round and round she goes, and where she stops, nobody knows."
-- The Original Amateur Hour, 1948
Don't take sentences out of context. That's not fair play.
You already know my position as I've stated it on that very matter:
The math is on the casino's side, so, yes, in that regard I, as everyone else, "face the worst of it".
But, even with that as a given, those times when my variance stats are barking, that's when "I'm getting the better of it".
C'mon, my friend, you knew exactly what I meant, as we've had this discussion already.
Please don't resort to the schoolyard tricks...leave those to the Beethoven9th's and the EvenBob's of this forum, that's their forte.
then why talk about it at all with people here? You have, Nothing .....Nothing to hide except the fact thst its not happening at all. You know It, I know it we all know it.Quote: gr8player"have something to hide"...'nuff said 'bout that.
I have not followed all the pages but I just have a simple question for you, sorry if you answered already.
How is your trending not gambler's fallacy? It seems to me from what your saying that you believe past results indicate future performance.
Quote: gr8player
But, even with that as a given, those times when my variance stats are barking, that's when "I'm getting the better of it".
Yours bark? My inner variance stats voice is more like two alley cats fighting.
