These Shoes Are Made For Talkin'......
You need the patience and the discipline to be a major part of your game. Bet only when that portion of the shoe is "talking" to you.
Flat bet most of the time. You are not in a race. Flat bet those trends that appear to be prominent in this shoe. Do not use "I lost my last bet" as an excuse to bet higher and higher. In fact, much preferable to await a "virtual win" (read: on-paper win) before resuming betting than it is to raise your bets into a potential "losing jag". Again, it's not a race to the finish. The ability to await the correct table conditions BEFORE placing their bets is ALL that separates the professionals from the amateurs in this game. Believe that.
And play a unit size that "matters"....large enough so that a one unit win...nay...a half unit...is STILL money. That doesn't mean you should go outside your own personal "comfort zone"; do not do that, for then you'll be too hesitant to place your bets. Stay within your comfort zone, but play a unit size that matters to you, so that a win....any win....will be somewhat worthwhile.
Lastly, you will need to raise your bets at some point, as way of efficient recoup. Here's how I do it:
I track my favorite, preferred trends. I keep a running tally of their respective results. If any single trend ever dips below its median, I'll adjust my bet size upward based upon the percentage of that dip, and I'll maintain that higher size until full recoup on that single trend. Absolute gold; because I know my variance statistics very well. As an example, there's one trend that I play that averages, in its downswing, just under 4-below median. Fine. Armed with that stat, whenever that trend takes that particular -4 dip, I'll adjust my unit size a bit upward for that trend only, and thereby expedite recoup. And, make no mistake of it, my friends, when you expedite recoup, the remainder simply becomes "pure profit". Know that. In fact, that's so important that it bears repeating:
We all, at some time or another, suffer through our downswings/downturns/variance dips; make no mistake of it, there's no place to hide. BUUUUTTT, when we learn to effectively recoup those tougher periods, when we are best armed to battle through those adversities, WHEN WE HAVE A PROVEN PLAN FOR THOSE DOWNTURNS.....we, effectively, are left with only profitability. That is the very purpose of my variance play. To know the very best times to adjust my unit sizes.
(It bears noting: It works in reverse, as well. I'll adjust my unit size downward if a certain trend is "over-performing", knowing that the impending downturn is just around the corner. May as well limit the bankroll damages when the inevitable occurs....)
Doesn't mean we can't lose. But it does mean that our losses are measured. And so are our responses to them.
And then it's but a short skip and a step to long term success.
And, as always, I wish it for all of you.
Quote: gr8playerSshhhh......listen for it..... If you learn how to "listen" and you take the time to await it, most shoes will "talk to you", telling you loudly and clearly (the louder and the clearer, the better) where to place your money. Not the entire shoe, necessarily, but most certainly, portions thereof. Sshhh....listen for it.....
You need the patience and the discipline to be a major part of your game. Bet only when that portion of the shoe is "talking" to you.
Flat bet most of the time. You are not in a race. Flat bet those trends that appear to be prominent in this shoe. Do not use "I lost my last bet" as an excuse to bet higher and higher. In fact, much preferable to await a "virtual win" (read: on-paper win) before resuming betting than it is to raise your bets into a potential "losing jag". Again, it's not a race to the finish. The ability to await the correct table conditions BEFORE placing their bets is ALL that separates the professionals from the amateurs in this game. Believe that.
And play a unit size that "matters"....large enough so that a one unit win...nay...a half unit...is STILL money. That doesn't mean you should go outside your own personal "comfort zone"; do not do that, for then you'll be too hesitant to place your bets. Stay within your comfort zone, but play a unit size that matters to you, so that a win....any win....will be somewhat worthwhile.
Lastly, you will need to raise your bets at some point, as way of efficient recoup. Here's how I do it:
I track my favorite, preferred trends. I keep a running tally of their respective results. If any single trend ever dips below its median, I'll adjust my bet size upward based upon the percentage of that dip, and I'll maintain that higher size until full recoup on that single trend. Absolute gold; because I know my variance statistics very well. As an example, there's one trend that I play that averages, in its downswing, just under 4-below median. Fine. Armed with that stat, whenever that trend takes that particular -4 dip, I'll adjust my unit size a bit upward for that trend only, and thereby expedite recoup. And, make no mistake of it, my friends, when you expedite recoup, the remainder simply becomes "pure profit". Know that. In fact, that's so important that it bears repeating:
We all, at some time or another, suffer through our downswings/downturns/variance dips; make no mistake of it, there's no place to hide. BUUUUTTT, when we learn to effectively recoup those tougher periods, when we are best armed to battle through those adversities, WHEN WE HAVE A PROVEN PLAN FOR THOSE DOWNTURNS.....we, effectively, are left with only profitability. That is the very purpose of my variance play. To know the very best times to adjust my unit sizes.
(It bears noting: It works in reverse, as well. I'll adjust my unit size downward if a certain trend is "over-performing", knowing that the impending downturn is just around the corner. May as well limit the bankroll damages when the inevitable occurs....)
Doesn't mean we can't lose. But it does mean that our losses are measured. And so are our responses to them.
And then it's but a short skip and a step to long term success.
And, as always, I wish it for all of you.
Quote: OntheButtonwhat are you talking about?
LOL! Exactly right. What the hell is he talking about. 300
words about nothing, its like Chinese water torture..
Looking at these inane responses, I simply cannot conjure up anything more than that rather terse non-reaction.
Wow.
I'd have thought there to be much more comprehensive intelligence in this forum than there apparently is......
Yet again, just....wow.
Quote: OntheButtonwhat are you talking about?
I think it's a demonstration that men know nothing about shoes.
Quote: gr8player
I'd have thought there to be much more comprehensive intelligence in this forum than there apparently is......
Yet again, just....wow.
You thought wrong. Find a smarter forum. Off you go, then..
In short, you are claiming a correlation between previous results and future results, where none exists, and especially not without card counting (examining the make up of the deck).
-4 from median trends is just a fancy way of expressing the gambler's fallacy ... that things have to go back towards average. Claiming a shoe is not 'random' because it's pre-ordained is also failing to understand the term 'random' in it's purest sense. Use unpredictable if you will. There's no fundamental difference from dealing from the front of the shoe or from the middle or every fifth card.
Therefore the result is still random, as you cannot know if there will be more Banker's or Player in the rest of the shoe (or in the next short term few hands), unless your trends are a magnitude more complex than you have alluded to, then you have nothing to ponder on except pretty words and a bogus terms like 'money management' and 'mental attitude'.
No, if there exists a good system, that one can follow and use, it would lead to money management and discipline, not the vice-versa magical thinking you propose and money others before you have tried to sell.
Carry on, if it works, we bother trying to sell me the golden goose. One wonders if personal acclamation is more important to you than winning in a casino. If it is, then one suspects you do not have the discipline and attitude you so implore others to have.
That said, I don't agree with your assessments at all. Not of my play nor of me personally. You're way off base. And wrong.
You apparently know little of my play and even less of me personally, for you're "taking shots" within that post that, again, are well off the mark.
But I love the effort, my friend, and it's refreshing to read something with some thought behind it beyond a snide remark. (Methinks there are alot of jealous members in this forum that can't stand to read of anyone's success.....miserable forum fools among us.)
Thanks again for taking the time and interest, thecesspit. Much appreciated.
I, for one, am thrilled that you have not left this forum and have decided to continue sharing your infinite wisdom with us, for we are your humble students. And please, gr8player, do not let the Negative Nancys here discourage you from posting. (My apologies in advance if your real name is Nancy!)
But gr8player...do not keep us in suspense any longer! We, your humble students, have but one question for you. It's a question that's near and dear to our hearts...a question that begs for your attention...a question that most deservedly requires an answer.
The question is:
Have you accepted the challenge yet?
We anxiously await your reply, gr8player, and I wish it all for you, my friend!
I do have two words for you to ponder, though:
Intelligent play.
Don't discount it, my friend, for to believe that every Bac player is the same is to believe in the tooth fairy. (Oh, and by tooth fairy, I mean the supposedly insurmountable house edge.....just for clarification purposes.)
Quote: gr8playerOh, thecesspit, I haven't nearly the time it would take to "counter" all your mistaken insights.....from the typically popular "Gambler's Fallacy" to the supposedly-senseless "discipline" and "money management" then right on to the "what am I trying to sell?".....oh, thecesspit, I could only wish I had that kind of time to tear assunder all you believe to be true of me or my Bac play.
Oh, just try starting with one thing, rather than pontificating on everything. I don't believe anything about you. I've clearly made an argument, with a series rational points, that you could start to dissemble if you have a counter point.
But you don't, you just tell me my beliefs are wrong. Great, well done. That and $2 buys me a Tim Horton's coffee on the way home.
Quote:I do have two words for you to ponder, though:
Intelligent play.
I've got two for you:
Intelligent Discussion.
Quote:Don't discount it, my friend, for to believe that every Bac player is the same is to believe in the tooth fairy. (Oh, and by tooth fairy, I mean the supposedly insurmountable house edge.....just for clarification purposes.)
No, the house edge exists, and I can prove it. Whereas your advantage is unproven. Proof is not you saying you went to the cage with winnings, or just because you say so. That's anecdotes. They may do fine for initial chatting, but with out something concrete, you are just adding entropy to a dying universe.
Not all Bac Players are the same, I agree. Some follow trends, some bet banker all the time, some martingale, some think they have a winning method. But each makes a bet with the same expectation on banker and player (*).
(*) The pedantic will note this is not precisely true, if deck composition is known, but the original poster is not noting down anything about deck composition and card ranks by his own admission. He's just following trends.
Quote: gr8playerOooops, sorry, thecesspit, look what happened in-between our discourse......idiocy popped up. Sorry.....don't blame Beethoven9th, for he simply doesn't know any better.
I see no idiocy. Just someone asking you to accept, or otherwise a challenge that was put forward to you. You can easily deal with it. You can say "I do not accept this challenge".
Or one better, negotiate the terms of the challenge.
The fact you continue think it's 'idiocy' adds to the growing weight of information that suggests you run scared of a positive betting oppurtunity. For after all, if you expect to win in general, a 50/50 bet is advantage play.
Quote: IbeatyouracesYou just got to love all of these "the math doesn't apply to me" gamblers.
I prefer the old way: "I have a system!" It's more concise and elegant.
Quote: thecesspitOh, just try starting with one thing, rather than pontificating on everything.
Thats all GR8 knows how to do, pontificate.
pontificate verb: to speak in an important manner as if only your opinion was correct.
Thats what he does in every post, gets on a soapbox
and rattles on about 'his way', which is meaningless to
the rest of us. He loves the abuse we heap on him, he
keeps coming back for more, doesn't he.
Yep, I can be asinine too.
The cards have spoken...
Quote: thecesspitI see no idiocy. Just someone asking you to accept, or otherwise a challenge that was put forward to you. You can easily deal with it. You can say "I do not accept this challenge".
Or one better, negotiate the terms of the challenge.
The fact you continue think it's 'idiocy' adds to the growing weight of information that suggests you run scared of a positive betting oppurtunity. For after all, if you expect to win in general, a 50/50 bet is advantage play.
The entire "challenge" concept is sheer idiocy; you know it, I know it, and Beethoven9th knows it.
And the very fact that an esteemed member such as yourself would respond to Beethoven9th's nonsensical persistence only serves to fuel the continuance of same.
What purpose would any so-called "challenge" serve? Would you like to see me "win a shoe" here on-line, or would you prefer I "lose a shoe"? Either way, you and I both know that it would prove to be absolutely nothing but an exercise in futility.
And, thecesspit, make no mistake of it, I do not, ever, "run scared of" what I may very well perceive as "a positive betting opportunity". On the contrary, those "positive betting opportunities" are EXACTLY WHY I CHOOSE TO PLAY BACCARAT.
Again, to me, anyway, and stated with all due respect, thecesspit; you appear as an intelligent man to me, but it appears that I cannot say the same for your judgement(s) of character.
Quote: IbeatyouracesYou just got to love all of these "the math doesn't apply to me" gamblers.
No one is denying the existence of the house's edge. It's there, alright, affecting every bet we make.
But, let's expound on that a bit, shall we, Ibeatyouraces?:
You're a Blackjack player, aren't you? A "counter", correct?
So, as a counter, you're awaiting what you deem to be a correct betting opportunity before you place a bet (or, should I say, a full-sized bet). That is your strategy in order to overcome the house edge at Balckjack, you await a betting opportunity.
Well, so do I. At Baccarat. Now, sure, I get the fact that you can counter that argument with: "But I'm betting into a mathematical advantage when I place my bet."
OK. But, while you might not be able to see it as clearly as I might, I contend that I'm doing pretty much the very same thing. I sense an opportunity, a portion of the shoe that is dispensing favorable results for me, and I pounce on it. And, to me, anyway, it's just as "mathematically sound" as your play is, if not even more so when you take into account my bet size "manipulation".
So please, Ibeatyouraces, spare me the "math doesn't apply to me" baloney.....it applies to ALL of us....you, me, all of us.
The TRUTH OF IT ALL, my friend, lies in our response to it.
Some choose to "run and hide" (and that's fine for those that deem it insurmountable); some choose to "stay and play", throwing caution to the wind; while there remain players such as myself and yourself, that carefully choose a mode of play that attempts to overcome the built-in edge.
Is your play any better than mine? Moreover, even more importantly, are your chances for long term success any greater than mine?
Your system basically is that if a shoe consists of say, 4 player wins and 10 banker wins, odds are in your favor that the player will catch up to banker, so you bet player, but only when the "variance" is high enough to make that bet.
Except that, in Bacarrat, like craps, like flipping a coin, it doesn't matter. Just because a shoe starts out with 6 bankers and 0 players doesn't mean that the next bet is more likely to come out "player". The hands have already been played. I know you feel better because cards have been played and therefore the cards that are left must give you a different result. But in Bacarrat, it's the order of the cards that matter, and not the content.
Thousands of players have felt the same way and have done the same thing using the same system and have failed... which is why Bacarrat continues to be a very profitable game for the casino.
But that's okay.
Quote: AxelWolfgr8player If you have a winning system, it would seem you would have work 24/7 365 and the cash would be rolling in faster then you could spend it. Why wast your time gloating here? You should be out pounding the casinos all day and hookers and blow all night.
Grow up, AxelWolf, will you?
I am a responsible family man, and, as such, I choose to work a full-time job.
Gloating? If that's the way you perceive my posts, then I can only apologize, my friend. My intention is to dispense valuable insights and observations based upon my vast experience at this game, and impart some viable playing strategies along the way. No gloating intended, just zeal and passion for this most challenging of games....Baccarat. I could see where one might mistake all of that for gloating, however; hence, the reason for my apology. I hope that clears things up a bit for you.
Quote: IbeatyouracesBaccarat in NOT a countable game. You can sit there all damn day writing down each and every card dealt and it STILL won't get you an advantage. You have no argument here and your way of base. Keep guessing though, it'll catch up to you.
I thougt Thorpe calculated a sub-miscroscopic advantage for a supra-extraordinary effort at counting Baccarat.
But I may be wrong, given my (lack of) understanding of math.
Quote: gr8playerThe entire "challenge" concept is sheer idiocy; you know it, I know it, and Beethoven9th knows it.
No, I don't 'know it'. It's a fair challenge. If you have the advantage, you make a fair bet. If you think a single shoe is not enough, offer 10, 3 dozen, whatever you like with a bet that makes sense to you.
But a single shoe as a challenge with both parties saying "this proves nothing as a single data point" is fine. Both sides things they have the "best of it". I fail to see why, unless it's money, why one party wouldn't say "hot damn, thats a +$1000 EV shot, let me at it". Or whatever number you calculate it to be.
Now if you can turn around and say "well, it's only worth $25 to me, I'll pass", that shows much. Except you continue to mock it, rather than pick apart the details. This inability to argue a logically therefore gives us much 'character' information.
Quote:And the very fact that an esteemed member such as yourself would respond to Beethoven9th's nonsensical persistence only serves to fuel the continuance of same.
No, it's nonsensical. Again you can either refuse the challenge specifically. Or accept it. Or change the terms to one that is acceptable to you.
Quote:And, thecesspit, make no mistake of it, I do not, ever, "run scared of" what I may very well perceive as "a positive betting opportunity". On the contrary, those "positive betting opportunities" are EXACTLY WHY I CHOOSE TO PLAY BACCARAT.
Except, someone has offered you a positive betting oppurtunity, but you don't even take the time to pursue it. Why exactly is that?
Quote:Again, to me, anyway, and stated with all due respect, thecesspit; you appear as an intelligent man to me, but it appears that I cannot say the same for your judgement(s) of character.
I can only judge the character exposed in your words. It may be incorrect, but what you choose to expose and say is all we have.
In short:
1- accept or reject or modify the challenge
2- be able to logically argue against the many points raised against your method in a concrete manner
Or not. It's your life to do with as you wish.
Quote: boymimboRight.
Your system basically is that if a shoe consists of say, 4 player wins and 10 banker wins, odds are in your favor that the player will catch up to banker, so you bet player, but only when the "variance" is high enough to make that bet.
Wrong.
You are mistaken regarding my Baccarat play.
Try this on for size, won't you, boymimbo?:
I have, say, a "preferred" trend that I play. Consistently. I know its historical variance statistics, as well as keeping track of its current results.
And I adjust my bets upon this "preferred" trend accordingly, either up, down or even "no-bet". All based upon the variance of that one single trend.
Now, thecesspit prefers to label that as "Gambler's Fallacy". I can only suspect that you might view it similarly. But you'd both be mistaken. Why?:
(Now come a bit closer to the computer screen here, boymimbo, because I'm about to reveal alot about my play.):
While, in general, I'm "spot-on" with my variances and do well with their historical and current stats, I LEAVE ROOM FOR ERROR.
You see, fellas, that's the failure point of 99.9% of player out there, and I mean some darn good players, too:
No room for error. No "recoup" strategy should the "worse situation" rear its ugly head.
Me? I'm too smart for that, and, hence, I don't let that "ruin run" devour me or my bankroll.
Without "giving the store away" here, suffice to say that I'll "break down the loss" from that under-performing trend and, shall I say, effectively "disperse" it for the most-efficient recoup process EVAH....
'nuff said 'bout that in this public forum.......
Those overpaid Hollywood actors don't even come close to providing this type of entertainment!
Quote:I have, say, a "preferred" trend that I play. Consistently. I know its historical variance statistics, as well as keeping track of its current results.
These words... I don't think they mean what you think they mean.
"Historical variance statistics"
Oh brother.
Historical: my recorded statistics on each trend over 1000 shoes.
Variance: the "drift" from their median line, both up- and down-wards
Statistics: the resulting numbers and/or percentages of same
Does that make you feel better, thecesspit, knowing my definitions? Or, rather, didn't you already know them but you preferred a rather lame attempt at embarrassing me?
This forum absolutely reeks of elitism, and without a doubt does not deserve to have me share a thing about me or my Bac play in it.....you all deserve each other.
Quote: gr8playerOK, OK, Mr. Semantics, try not to look down your nose upon me:
Historical: my recorded statistics on each trend over 1000 shoes.
Variance: the "drift" from their median line, both up- and down-wards
Statistics: the resulting numbers and/or percentages of same
Does that make you feel better, thecesspit, knowing my definitions? Or, rather, didn't you already know them but you preferred a rather lame attempt at embarrassing me?
This forum absolutely reeks of elitism, and without a doubt does not deserve to have me share a thing about me or my Bac play in it.....you all deserve each other.
I'm not a Bac player and I haven't read all your posts but you must keep meticulous records as I do with blackjack. Would you care to share your yearly or lifetime wins? I'll understand if you choose not to as I don't share my blackjack wins other than being very vague.
Do you play under the radar and do you get heat for winning? Do you play rated? Do you get comped well?
Quote: gr8playerOK, OK, Mr. Semantics, try not to look down your nose upon me:
Historical: my recorded statistics on each trend over 1000 shoes.
Variance: the "drift" from their median line, both up- and down-wards
Statistics: the resulting numbers and/or percentages of same
Your definition of variance is not one I am used to. Variance does not drift. Variance (in this case) is a fixed property which defines how much the data varies from mean. Not the median. Its one property of a probability distribution function. Once you know the variance from your 1000 shoes, the variance is the variance. The current state is one data point on the distribution function.
So one could calculate the distribution function for the trend in question. Work out the median, the variance and other information. One can understand that at -4 was a x% event. But this does not tell you that the next X events will tend to be type Y. These events are still defined by the probability density function. It has not changed, and there is no regression to the mean.
The state of the art research says that player/banker probabilities vary very little dependent on the deck make up. As you (unless we misunderstand) are tracking only results, not the remaining deck make up, then P/B probabilities are fixed, by the very probability distribution function you are using to calculate the variance. Therefore, you cannot use past events to tell you that the 'trends' will change or stay the same in the future.
Ergo, your "intelligent play" does not result in anything more than guessing and bet sizing with no advantage.
It would be possible to refute my statements above, by the way. I can think of two or three techniques you might claim to apply that would not make the model above correct. However, they would break at least one key axiom I am making in my assessment. And then you'd have to show clearly why that axiom was not valid for a baccarat deck. This is entirely possible.
You probably wouldn't want to reveal your entire method, of course. But that's okay. You don't need to. There's at least two key ways you can show the method is worth further investigation, if that should be your aim.
If it's not, well, one wonders what you are trying to achieve, apart from saying much with out actually revealing.
Quote:Does that make you feel better, thecesspit, knowing my definitions? Or, rather, didn't you already know them but you preferred a rather lame attempt at embarrassing me?
No, wasn't trying to embarrass you. You used a series of words in a way that doesn't make sense mathematically.
Quote:This forum absolutely reeks of elitism, and without a doubt does not deserve to have me share a thing about me or my Bac play in it.....you all deserve each other.
There's nothing elitist about asking people to be able to follow a logical argument, or to make one. It's a standard that is not applied often enough. You have to realize many people have claimed magical methods for beating the system, and none of them have stood the cold light of harsh analysis. Other people have shown a clear advantage play in areas.... guess what? They don't get mocked.
Quote: gr8playerThe entire "challenge" concept is sheer idiocy; you know it, I know it, and Beethoven9th knows it.
Quote: gr8playerGrow up, AxelWolf, will you?
Quote: gr8playerOK, OK, Mr. Semantics, try not to look down your nose upon me:
Quote: gr8playerThis forum absolutely reeks of elitism, and without a doubt does not deserve to have me share a thing about me or my Bac play in it.....you all deserve each other.
Hello gr8player,
I am thrilled that an esteemed teacher such as yourself has resumed posting on this forum because we are in dire need of your help.
But I must ask, gr8player, why does a sage such as yourself insult his humble students? Forgive us for our inability to grasp your wisdom, my friend. I know that our collective intellectual power pales in comparison to yours, so please do have patience with us. We seek your advice in unlocking the highly treasured secrets of baccarat!
Oh yes, and before I bid you farewell, gr8player, I must ask a tiny favor of you. Just a minor favor, mind you. It's something to which this entire forum yearns for an answer.
On behalf of the members of the WoV forum, I—as your meek & humble follower—wish to ask:
Have you accepted the challenge yet?
Have a beautiful day, gr8player, and I wish you nothing but the very best!
Quote: IbeatyouracesI believe on the you're but only at the very, very end of the shoe. Either way it you'd make more money picking up change of the ground. But as we know, this guy here says he's winning following "trends" using "money management" which is complete and utter trash.
Also, I card count blackjack so rare these days. There is a lot better money elsewhere and not a dime of it comes from a non APable bac gam.
Mini-Bac is countable in the purist sense that with extremely deep pen (like 7.75/8), the tie bet could exhibit some positive EV situations. However, IDing all of these situations requires counts that keep many side counts. But recall standard mini-bac dealing procedure. The first card is revealed, and then X cards are burned based on the value of the card, face cards equalling 10 and an ace being 11. This coupled with the cut card being set at 14-17 cards makes the effective pen at about 7.5/8. So, long story short, don't waste your time counting mini-bac shoes!!! You can make more money picking up cans out of the trash (In MI). Yes, Elliot and others have written about popular side bets, but let's face it, do you think those guys are really "reputable" APs?
My opinion on this guy (gr8player) is that he needs to learn some math before he goes into a casino. As far as I'm concerned, if I owned a casino, I would offer him a Room and Beverage comp, along with airfare if his level of play was high enough...
jet
Quote: gr8playerOK, OK, Mr. Semantics, try not to look down your nose upon me:
Historical: my recorded statistics on each trend over 1000 shoes.
Variance: the "drift" from their median line, both up- and down-wards
Statistics: the resulting numbers and/or percentages of same
Does that make you feel better, thecesspit, knowing my definitions? Or, rather, didn't you already know them but you preferred a rather lame attempt at embarrassing me?
This forum absolutely reeks of elitism, and without a doubt does not deserve to have me share a thing about me or my Bac play in it.....you all deserve each other.
Could you please come back when you break your first casino? I am not expecting Wynn or anything, but perhaps El Cortez or something smaller would be a start.
Quote: 1BBI'm not a Bac player and I haven't read all your posts but you must keep meticulous records as I do with blackjack. Would you care to share your yearly or lifetime wins? I'll understand if you choose not to as I don't share my blackjack wins other than being very vague.
Do you play under the radar and do you get heat for winning? Do you play rated? Do you get comped well?
Thank you for your inquiry, 1BB.
You're assumption is a correct one; I keep ledgers at home detailing virtually everything regarding my Bac play (and even updating theories) that are updated weekly. After I transpose the pertinant information therein, I then discard my scorecards (I used to save them, until it took up a major portion of one of our rooms).
Regarding my lifetime wins, I'm afraid I am (probably) still in the red. You see, my friend, I thought I had Baccarat all figured out much, much too prematurely in my Bac play and got, for lack of a better term, killed. I lost a good 6-figures (a GOOD 6-figures) before I finally came to the only conclusion that I could come to: I'd either get the better of this game, or I'd cease to play it. Hence, I developed my current method. It didn't happen overnight, and it took a whole lotta work and due diligence, but I wound up to the point where I'm at today, and now I'm well into some nice yearly profits for the past few years, easily. But, because I have rather limited casino access, it'll still take more time before I can pronounce myself as a lifetime winner...I've too many early losses that I'd need to recoup first.
Look, that's a major reason for my posting....trying to prevent anyone else from making the same mistakes I did. I thought I had it all figured out. I found out, and I mean I found out the hard way, that I did not. And if you took the time to read my posts, I try to convey all of that which served to turn my Bac game around, from loss to win. There is alot involved in doing so, and therefore I do post as often as I'm able to. I've got alot to say about this game, because I've played it and I've lived it. And I firmly believe that anyone that is serious aboiut this game can glean much useful information that'll serve to clear their path to possible long-term success.
I do get rated, but my ratings are horrendous, for obvious reasons. Just as obvious, my comps are virtually non-existant. No one's clamoring for my Bac action. 'nuff said
Heat? Well, there was one casino that sent the "suits" down (3 of them) to observe first-hand and, most probably, to intimidate. Didn't work. I simply gave that joint up. It's out of my rotation now.
Another hotel had me rated to win. Yes, I saw it in their computer (a friend of mine worked in the credit dept). I am rated with a positive expectation. That became another hotel that I dropped from my rotation.
I had another pit boss, who was retiring in a few months, ask me, point blank, would I mind if he could piggy-back my play. (Play alongside me.)
There are more examples, but I think I answered your questions.
Be well.
