Ibeatyouraces
Joined: Jan 12, 2010
• Posts: 11933
August 21st, 2013 at 9:14:12 AM permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
Nareed
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
• Posts: 11413
August 21st, 2013 at 9:28:16 AM permalink
Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Baccarat 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.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
Ibeatyouraces
Joined: Jan 12, 2010
• Posts: 11933
August 21st, 2013 at 9:31:59 AM permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
thecesspit
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
• Posts: 5936
August 21st, 2013 at 9:36:26 AM permalink
Quote: gr8player

The 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.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
gr8player
Joined: Mar 2, 2013
• Posts: 606
August 21st, 2013 at 9:37:06 AM permalink
Quote: boymimbo

Right.

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.......
rob45
Joined: Jul 24, 2013
• Posts: 251
August 21st, 2013 at 9:38:44 AM permalink
I love this stuff!
Those overpaid Hollywood actors don't even come close to providing this type of entertainment!
Ibeatyouraces
Joined: Jan 12, 2010
• Posts: 11933
August 21st, 2013 at 9:40:16 AM permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
Ibeatyouraces
Joined: Jan 12, 2010
• Posts: 11933
August 21st, 2013 at 9:40:57 AM permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
thecesspit
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
• Posts: 5936
August 21st, 2013 at 10:26:06 AM permalink
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.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
gr8player
Joined: Mar 2, 2013