Turning Losers Into Winners

Let me begin this thread with a view into yesterday's Bac session @Borgata:

Buy-in 1:00 P.M.:

Let's cut to the chase, shall we? An absolutely terrible start. I was down a good (or should I say "bad") 8 units at the end of that first shoe. That's alot for me in one shoe. Too much, in fact. (But last night's...Thurs nite...session was a relative breeze win, so I sorta figured...remember I'm a "variance" tracker/player...there might be some difficulty at next session...in fact, I cut my starting unit size (great move) for this session.) So now I'm literally forced into "grind mode". And grind it back I did. Two shoes later....2 shoes!....just to recoup (and a relatively small 1 1/2 unit profit).

So let's talk about "turning losers into winners":

My job at the table is to avert losses. Either eliminate them completely or lessen them as much as possible. That's my goal, that's my job, that's my responsibility. Whatever that means, whatever it takes....that's what I must accomplish.

Winning? Winning's the easy part. Thursday night's session gave me 8 relatively-easy units of profit. Less than one shoe. Won and done. Let's face it, positive variance is a, well, positive. Winning is going to happen , even in spite of ourselves. Winning is winning....nothing more, nothing less. Everyone does it every now and again.

But that doesn't serve to define my play. Rather, it's sessions like yesterday's that serve to define my play....my mentality, my determination, my discipline, my patience, my grind...my LOSS ELIMINATION.

And I must add this: Twice yesterday, during my "grinding to recoup" mode, I came with 1 unit of full recoup, only to slip back down a few unikts. Twice. Well, I'd go for full recoup only one more time, had I have failed, I'd have accepted the minor loss after such a long battle. But I was fortunate enough, on the 3rd attempt at full recoup to get there (and even a small profit as the Bank "dom" continued a bit longer).

But the real point is this: turning your tougher sessions, your losers, into winners (or as close as you can get to it). Whatever it takes.

Look, if you've got "half a game", if you know what you are doing, you know what you need to do...you've got to go into "grind mode". The plays...your plays...will come, if you allow them to. Grind it back. Get yourself back into the game. Mentally as well as physically. Strike that...mentally is even more important than physically.

Adopt that "loser into winner" mentality. And stick to your best game, always. No "tilting" allowed, just your best plays; and then the cream will, eventually, rise to the top.

As always, I wish it for all of you.

EDITED TO ADD:

I had briefly mentioned just above that I had cut back my starting unit size because of the positive variance from my last couple of sessions, and that proved to be a good move. But, know this: I play in units, not dollars. I protect those units, regardless their size(s). That's my job, my responsibility.

Quote: gr8player

Winning? Winning's the easy part.

I gotta find a pencil and write that dowm, I'm
sure I'll forget it otherwise. When I'm in the
casino I can glance at it for renewed confidence.

Quote: gr8player

An absolutely terrible start. I was down a good (or should I say "bad") 8 units at the end of that first shoe.

Okay I'm biting my lip here, without asking the purpose of the thread starter other than fulfilling your need to tell us you won. So how about a bit more detail, such as, how many bets you made in that first shoe?

Quote: gr8player

Look, if you've got "half a game", if you know what you are doing, you know what you need to do.

You're playing a game that's complete luck, and carries a house edge. Other than hoping to beat math (impossible), there is nothing to know

Quote: egalite

Okay I'm biting my lip here, without asking the purpose of the thread starter other than fulfilling your need to tell us you won. So how about a bit more detail, such as, how many bets you made in that first shoe?

Regardless of how you prefer to perceive my intent in this forum, please know that I do not "post to boast". Rather, I am proud of the manner in which I performed at the Baccarat table yesterday, especially in the light of some beginning difficulties, and chose to share that experience here in this forum. IMHO, a terse "thank you" would suffice as a preferable response; I've better things to do with my limited computer time than to play "tit for tat" with you or anyone else whose main intentions are only to incite and inflame.

FYI, I went 8 for 22 with 2 lost parlay attempts. Absolute garbage shoe. Spit happens...it's the responses to it that truly serves to define us as Bac players.

EDITED TO ADD:

Stated a bit more clearly: I won 8 bets while losing 14, with two of those losses doubled as lost parlays. Hence, -8.

Quote: michael99000

You're playing a game that's complete luck, and carries a house edge. Other than hoping to beat math (impossible), there is nothing to know

Hello, michael99000.

Luck has its place in this (or any gambling) game, I'll give you that. But luck will take you only so far. And, as such, a serious Bac player cannot pin their hopes on it.

So, my friend, there just might be something else to know if we are intent on beating the math. Maybe. I say maybe because it's not for everyone, for some people the math MUST hold, for it is virtually immovable.

For instance:

A player bets the Banker side every decision. He must lose according to the house edge. In that case, it is written in stone that, in the long run, he must lose.

My contention:

If a player were to adjust his plays to the current conditions of the shoe/table ALL OF THE TIME and also adjust their bet sizes based upon his current variances ALL OF THE TIME (steady, consistent play)....well, by now I'm quite sure that you guys know my stance on that matter....

Suffice to say, I see it not as "impossible" as you might believe it to be.

gr8!!!! LOL. 1:00pm at the Borgata? I was there. Maybe we were playing at the same table. Who knows.

Quote: gr8player

Hello, michael99000.

...

Suffice to say, I see it not as "impossible" as you might believe it to be.

Teacher, you forgot to end with, "I wish it all for you!"

Hello, D-man, how the heck are ya'? Been a while.....

That was not my shoe, I was at the smoking table....I opened it....

I, too, prefer those "midi" tables across from the EZ bac, mainly because they carry lower minimums than the tables "upstairs".

Thanks for chiming in, D-man....come around more often, will you? You know that I respect your opinion(s). Stay well, my friend.

I will stop by in here from time to time. As hilarious as many of the members in here are donks who can never make it at the tables, this site/board does hold some merit. The hotels and games section are immensely useful.

hmmm.... yikes.

Quote: gr8player

Hello, D-man, how the heck are ya'? Been a while.....

That was not my shoe, I was at the smoking table....I opened it....

I, too, prefer those "midi" tables across from the EZ bac, mainly because they carry lower minimums than the tables "upstairs".

Thanks for chiming in, D-man....come around more often, will you? You know that I respect your opinion(s). Stay well, my friend.

8/14 for a 36% hit rate, I've had worst that that, not exactly a shoe from hell. It's a damn shame it wasn't your shoe, you could have explained were you bet. If you opened the table, how did you move the shoe along seeing you don't bet every hand?

All you have to do is get really good at guessing numbers. Anyone can do it, with enough practice!

I have a similar system for winning at scratch off lottery tickets..
As well as guess which hand I'm holding the ball in

Quote: michael99000

I have a similar system for winning at scratch off lottery tickets..

LOL!

Quote: michael99000

I have a similar system for winning at scratch off lottery tickets..
As well as guess which hand I'm holding the ball in

Thank you for not starting threads about all your winnings
and boring us all to death, like certain other people.

Quote: DMSCR

hmmm.... yikes.

Yeah....I hear ya', my friend.....I know the feeling.

Quote: egalite

If you opened the table, how did you move the shoe along seeing you don't bet every hand?

There's an old adage regarding Bac tables and McDonald's: "Open it, and they will come." Before the end of the shuffle, two more players showed up.

Quote: gr8player

There's an old adage regarding Bac tables and McDonald's: "Open it, and they will come." Before the end of the shuffle, two more players showed up.

Very good, obviously your on song at the mo.

Quote: egalite

Incidentally, in the classy Palm Beach London you can put £100 on "the Super Egalite", so I have been informed, £100 x 160-1, mind boggling.

Quote: GBV

Careful here, they are one of a very few places to bar me for counting baccarat.

Quote: egalite

I'm also not allowed in the place.

LOL. Not only being banned in various online forums such as the WoV but 86'd in casinos as well. Now Palm Beach London is a Genting casino, this means egalite is banned in all Genting establishments around the world! Not for being a good player I have heard but being a disruption and disrespectful towards casino employees.

deleted

It is what it is, D-man.....I chalk it up as simply the price of admission 'round here. I try to remain respectful to all, regardless of their personal opinions, as I've learned to simply weed out those whose main intentions are ill-meant.

EDITED TO ADD:

As I just sent this post, I noticed that last one, where Ibeatyouraces is predicting a possible suspension. I hope he's wrong, as I think that it's simply a matter of a wrong choice of words on D-man's part, a case of semantics. No harm, no foul, IMHO.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

I'm guessing 3 days.

You guessed right.

deleted

CORRECTION:

This is actually a second-offense personal insult, and the first one was pretty harsh and drew a week in its own right. I am adjusting DMSCR's Suspension to fourteen days.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Still, calling experts "donks" while not having any grasp on mathematics is uncalled for.

Hmmm.....you know what else I deem "uncalled for", Ibeatyouraces? Your utter assumption that DMSCR hasn't "any grasp on mathematics". In the years that I've read D-man's posts/PMs, I can state with absolute confidence that your assessment is off-base. 'nuff said 'bout that....

deleted

Firstly, I utilize both trending bet selections and money management; both are of equal import to my play.

And secondly, please know that it is not my intention to label anyone as a "liar", their gaming expertise notwithstanding. I am of the opinion that we can, after all is said and done, have differing views of the same game without anyone being demeaned by either party. We are all entitled to our opinions....I dare to say that is, in fact, probably the thing I enjoy most about this forum.

Quote: gr8player

Hmmm.....you know what else I deem "uncalled for", Ibeatyouraces? Your utter assumption that DMSCR hasn't "any grasp on mathematics". In the years that I've read D-man's posts/PMs, I can state with absolute confidence that your assessment is off-base. 'nuff said 'bout that....

I assure you he hasn't, after he was banned at BF and just before the site went off air, I accessed his sub-forum, which he was the only member and read the solitary post he made to himself. He is more Frankenstein than most, with his nonsensical theories. He is so quick to shoot from the hip, one can only conclude the pressure of the game is serving less well than the "claimed top shelf hookers on the strip" he thought it was cool to brag about, plus he is obviously miffed and hurt at being removed. Then again, you need and try to muster all the friends you can get, nothing beats stepping back and indulging in some school yard antics, is there ("my side, your side, I've got more friends than you, ohh look at me, my threads are rated")? WTF!

Quote: gr8player

Firstly, I utilize both trending bet selections and money management; both are of equal import to my play.

So what? What you do is no worst, yet no better than what anybody else does, the silly downfall came about because in some deluded thought process you claim to have an advantage. Maintaining discipline, knowing when to raise or lower your bets does not equate to having any real measurable advantage, rather maybe just makes you a experienced gambler, unlikely to go "all in".

However taking such an sensible angle would not have garnered the desired & necessary attention. Hence the 56% EV claim which quite frankly is both ludicrous & deluded, even debunked by your own admission given the original post in this topic. Soon followed by unit size hints, like this actually carries weight, again unsubstantiated and fanciful at best. You really really ought to consider putting whatever profits you make to getting to the bottom of this craving, know what I'm saying.

Quote: egalite

I assure you he hasn't, after he was banned at BF and just before the site went off air, I accessed his sub-forum, which he was the only member and read the solitary post he made to himself. He is more Frankenstein than most, with his nonsensical theories. He is so quick to shoot from the hip, one can only conclude the pressure of the game is serving less well than the "claimed top shelf hookers on the strip" he thought it was cool to brag about, plus he is obviously miffed and hurt at being removed.

As much as I ignore most of your baloney, I simply cannot remain silent here, as I find this absolutely disgraceful:

No one should be permitted to continue to rag on and on about a member that's currently suspended, and, therefore, cannot defend themselves.

Only one definition of such behavior: Despicable.

Stop it.

Quote: gr8player

Firstly, I utilize both trending bet selections and money management; both are of equal import to my play.

Technically, that's true: neither bet selections nor money management are of any importance whatsoever in regards to adjusting one's theoretical return. There is a reason all of those phrases fall under the umbrella of the Gambler's Fallacy: it's because they are fallacious. There's nothing at all wrong with playing according to trends, but it's not accurate to suggest that your recent good luck was the result of any skill you've developed at picking winners, identifying trends, selecting bets, or managing your money. You're ahead because you won more money than you lost on a game that -- the way you play it -- is entirely based on luck.

I don't expect this missive to change your mind, but you should at least understand that very few readers of this forum in particular believe in the maturity of chances or that perceived trends at a table indicate anything at all about future outcomes. As is said in the investment world, "past performance is no guarantee of future results." That is even truer of baccarat than of corporate equities.

Quote: MathExtremist

"past performance is no guarantee of future results." .

Leave out the word "guarantee" cause nothing guarantees any winners even with +EV except under extreme cases. My question is what about sports handicapping? I remember a machine/BJ AP telling a sports bettor this, "past performance dose not affect future results. The machine/BJ player now broke. The Sports bettor is now very well off.

Quote: gr8player

As much as I ignore most of your baloney, I simply cannot remain silent here, as I find this absolutely disgraceful:

No one should be permitted to continue to rag on and on about a member that's currently suspended, and, therefore, cannot defend themselves.

Only one definition of such behavior: Despicable.

Stop it.

He doesn't defend, or even debate, he just goes for twisting the jugular , which suggests, "something just isn't right", in his lonely world. He's now on his second ban, probably only a matter of time before it is made permanent one would think. So how would that leave you? Minus one significant "he's on my side"!!!

If my memory serves me right, I vaguely recall a few years ago, a nonsensical poster being bounced from this site (or could have been one of the respected BJ sites), simply based on them forever posting stupidity and doing the forum a disservice by perpetrating gambling myths. One wonders about your own long term longevity, despite your feeble attempts at borrowing my phraseology ("heat of battle"). I've ran into you far too often, to know how you operate. Now your on a forum were nearly everybody do not buy into the silliness you managed to perpetrate while feeding off elsewhere.

I also know how you react if you don't receive the attention & adulation you seem to think you deserve (not totally unexpected that your threads are the only ones ranked, been doin' it yourself!). The sad fact is, none of this has its roots in winning, losing, or is even gambling related. I was serious with the suggestion of you putting any current profits into discovering why this need exists.

Johno: Would that be the infamous Frank Stanton going on and on about the "flaw", on bj21?

Quote: DeMango

Johno: Would that be the infamous Frank Stanton going on and on about the "flaw", on bj21?

I can't remember it is going back a few years, I do recall the (don't know if it was WOO or a BJ site), the admin removing somebody not because of any abuse, rather due to to their wacky way of thinking in the interest of its members. It was something along the lines of, we don't need our members reading this kind of nonsense here as it is doing a dis-service by hosting or spreading this crap (to be applauded no doubt). I remarked on it at the time at the Glen.

It would have to be extremely ridiculous for me to ban someone for that reason, and probably even to the level of trolling by way of creating a crap-ton of threads. The nice thing about the experience and mathematical knowledge of the Members of this Forum is that, individuals can essentially post whatever they want, and there's going to be enough mathematically valid counter-argument for an individual to know what's what, regardless of what a sub-section of individuals have to say.

Although, Gr8Player seems to wish to demonstrate his methods to us within certain parameters...I'm still awaiting his response on a different thread as he accepted the terms of my experiment with certain modifications that would render it pointless. I explained why it would be rendered pointless and await a response.

The more I think about it, I am pretty sure it wasn't the WOO rather a renowned BJ forum. Some people drop all kinds of dog turds when it comes to gambling, at the time it was refreshing to see a site actually do something about it.

While I can't predict the next hand in a game of Baccarat, the outcome of your offer was sure predictable.

Quote: AxelWolf

Leave out the word "guarantee" cause nothing guarantees any winners even with +EV except under extreme cases. My question is what about sports handicapping? I remember a machine/BJ AP telling a sports bettor this, "past performance dose not affect future results. The machine/BJ player now broke. The Sports bettor is now very well off.

Sports team performance from week to week is not an independent random variable. The team has statefulness that is relevant to the game being played. That's also true of the shoe in blackjack, but not of the shoe in baccarat or of dice or roulette. Using football as an example, if a team's star defensive lineman goes down, that's information that you can use to adjust your expectation of the O/U line. If you get your bet down before the bookies change their lines, you can profit. Sports betting is entirely a game of information. Table games are typically not.

Quote: MathExtremist

Technically, that's true: neither bet selections nor money management are of any importance whatsoever in regards to adjusting one's theoretical return. There is a reason all of those phrases fall under the umbrella of the Gambler's Fallacy: it's because they are fallacious. There's nothing at all wrong with playing according to trends, but it's not accurate to suggest that your recent good luck was the result of any skill you've developed at picking winners, identifying trends, selecting bets, or managing your money. You're ahead because you won more money than you lost on a game that -- the way you play it -- is entirely based on luck.

I don't expect this missive to change your mind, but you should at least understand that very few readers of this forum in particular believe in the maturity of chances or that perceived trends at a table indicate anything at all about future outcomes. As is said in the investment world, "past performance is no guarantee of future results." That is even truer of baccarat than of corporate equities.

Hello, MathExtremist.

Good post....you present yourself and your opinions well. Nice job.

I "get" it. I'm not purporting any particular "skill", especially as it pertains to "picking winners".

Alternatively, I prefer to utilize certain statistics to assist me in "picking my winners" (read: bet selections). C'mon, your very moniker says it all..."MathExtremist"...you must believe in certain statistics, as well.

And I play those stats and selections consistantly, with a "sliding scale" money management adjusted according to the most current strike rate(s) of same.

Lastly, MathExtremist, I also "get" the fact that I'm in the minority in this forum. I fully understand that "your math" trumps "my math". I respect that. After all, your math is both readily at hand and discernible....my math is a bit more nebulous, to say the least.

But it's still mine; my play, my bet, and my math. For me, and to me, it's as valuable and valid as your math.

"Past performance is no guarantee of future results"....c'mon, man, we all know what the only "guarantees" are in this world.

Some trends last, some don't. Doesn't really matter on a decision-to-decision basis; not to me, anyhow. Because I'll "no-bet". I'm that hunter waiting in the woods until my prey appears as vulnerable. I'll wait it out. My "math" will kick in, as sure as yours does, just mine might take a bit longer, that's all.

I wish you all the very best of it, MathExtremist, and stay well, my friend.

Quote: gr8player

Hello, MathExtremist. Good post....you present yourself and your opinions well. Nice job.

.

Congrats ME, you get a free copy of GR8's newsletter every month.

Quote: gr8player

I'm that hunter waiting in the woods until my prey appears as vulnerable. I'll wait it out. My "math" will kick in, as sure as yours does, just mine might take a bit longer, that's all.

Well, no, that's why it's a fallacy. First, there is no attribution needed for mathematics: math doesn't belong to me any more than it belongs to you or Blaise Pascal. It simply is. Whether you choose to learn and understand it is up to you (and not me or Pascal).

But the point is that you are basing your next plays on the incorrect assumption that what you observed in the past is relevant, and specifically that your past observations of Player and Banker can give you a hint as to whether the next outcome is more likely to be Player or Banker. That has conclusively been proven not to be the case. There is lots of literature on why that is so, and should you be interested in educating yourself, the members here (myself included) can point you toward the right materials.

In the absence of said interest, carry on believing what you will. The house will be happy to book your bets regardless of whether you think you have an edge.

Quote: gr8player

Hello, MathExtremist.

Good post....you present yourself and your opinions well. Nice job.

I "get" it. I'm not purporting any particular "skill", especially as it pertains to "picking winners".

Alternatively, I prefer to utilize certain statistics to assist me in "picking my winners" (read: bet selections). C'mon, your very moniker says it all..."MathExtremist"...you must believe in certain statistics, as well.

And I play those stats and selections consistantly, with a "sliding scale" money management adjusted according to the most current strike rate(s) of same.

Lastly, MathExtremist, I also "get" the fact that I'm in the minority in this forum. I fully understand that "your math" trumps "my math". I respect that. After all, your math is both readily at hand and discernible....my math is a bit more nebulous, to say the least.

But it's still mine; my play, my bet, and my math. For me, and to me, it's as valuable and valid as your math.

"Past performance is no guarantee of future results"....c'mon, man, we all know what the only "guarantees" are in this world.

Some trends last, some don't. Doesn't really matter on a decision-to-decision basis; not to me, anyhow. Because I'll "no-bet". I'm that hunter waiting in the woods until my prey appears as vulnerable. I'll wait it out. My "math" will kick in, as sure as yours does, just mine might take a bit longer, that's all.

I wish you all the very best of it, MathExtremist, and stay well, my friend.

Unfortunately your hunting Bigfoot with a .22. Do you believe in Bigfoot as well?

Quote: MathExtremist

The house will be happy to book your bets regardless of whether you think you have an edge.

Sure, MathExtremist, I totally understand and agree. Oh.....and grateful.

Quote: AxelWolf

Unfortunately your hunting Bigfoot with a .22. Do you believe in Bigfoot as well?

Nope.

But I do believe that is possible to pare down the house edge with intelligently measured play.

Ergo, I do happen to believe that I'm smarter than Bigfoot.

" Ergo, I do happen to believe that I'm smarter than Bigfoot. " That belief is not shared by everyone !

Quote: MathExtremist

But the point is that you are basing your next plays on the incorrect assumption that what you observed in the past is relevant,

"your next plays"
seems to be the driving force in the OP bet selection over his next plays. Banker, Player or No bet.
Info from the past distribution pointing to the next distribution

Quote: MathExtremist

and specifically that your past observations
of Player and Banker
can give you a hint as to whether the
next outcome is more likely to be Player or Banker.

Did the OP ever hint he plays for only the very next outcome?
I do not read all of his posts, too difficult for this old man.

One of his examples was he was 2/3 into an 8 deck shoe and saw, why then I ask,
the # of runs of length 1 was only 3.
Any knowledgeable Baccarat player knows the probability of any shoe ending with 3 or less of those is very close to 0
my million shoe sim shows none happened
(114 times for 4 times in one shoe was the lowest)

I am way more disappointed in the OP after reading that post where
he claims to have scored a what 6 unit win ($10 - $25 a unit?)
after being the only one to witness this distribution unfolding!
This is absolutely a pathetic result IMHO.

such a rare event requires more to be wagered over the remaining distribution.
only 6 units?
and he is happy about that.
They better have been $1 million dollars units
Should have been able to retire from gambling after that shoe
when will the next 2/3 shoe show only 3 of length 1?

this makes me so ill, I go jump into the pool

Quote: 7craps

"your next plays"
seems to be the driving force in the OP bet selection over his next plays. Banker, Player or No bet.
Info from the past distribution pointing to the next distribution

Did the OP ever hint he plays for only the very next outcome?
I do not read all of his posts, too difficult for this old man.

One of his examples was he was 2/3 into an 8 deck shoe and saw, why then I ask,
the # of runs of length 1 was only 3.
Any knowledgeable Baccarat player knows the probability of any shoe ending with 3 or less of those is very close to 0
my million shoe sim shows none happened
(114 times for 4 times in one shoe was the lowest)

To be fair, things are getting lost in translation, Hint? Did he actually say that, or was he passing 'hints' to readers? I think the OP was stating what he bets for based on what has occurred previously (his trigger point). Not so much as getting a hint regarding which side will win, rather, "this is my move", while appreciating the final outcome could go either way.

Regarding shoes with a lack of singles (chopless), I've played a fair few that have consisted of three or less singles, a rare event perhaps. At the end of the day, the little pieces of plastic have no awareness what they are producing, how the punter is interpreting what they are doing, nor do they care. Anthropomorphizing (term borrowed from WOO poster) the game is fraught with dangers and ranks right up as gamblers fallacy.

Quote: 7craps

"your next plays"
seems to be the driving force in the OP bet selection over his next plays. Banker, Player or No bet.
Info from the past distribution pointing to the next distribution

Did the OP ever hint he plays for only the very next outcome?
One of his examples was he was 2/3 into an 8 deck shoe and saw, why then I ask,
the # of runs of length 1 was only 3.
Any knowledgeable Baccarat player knows the probability of any shoe ending with 3 or less of those is very close to 0
my million shoe sim shows none happened
(114 times for 4 times in one shoe was the lowest)

I am way more disappointed in the OP after reading that post where
he claims to have scored a what 6 unit win ($10 - $25 a unit?)
after being the only one to witness this distribution unfolding!
This is absolutely a pathetic result IMHO.

such a rare event requires more to be wagered over the remaining distribution.
only 6 units?
and he is happy about that.
They better have been $1 million dollars units
Should have been able to retire from gambling after that shoe
when will the next 2/3 shoe show only 3 of length 1?

Finally!

Someone that actually GETS IT!

Bravo, Mr. 7craps, bravo!

Staistical distribution of the Laws of Series in a closed-end Baccarat shoe......
.......sure beats that measly HE, don't it?

Letting an event come to you rather than chasing for an event.......
.......sure beats that measly HE, don't it?

Adjusting your unit sizes based upon the most recent results of said statictics......
.......sure beats that measly HE, don't it?

Imagine that... sure could teach these boys a thing or two about how REAL baccarat is played, if only I were so inclined to do so in this particularly "friendly" forum...

Oh, and thanks again for the "go", 7craps. Stay well, my friend.

Quote: gr8player

Staistical distribution of the Laws of Series in a closed-end Baccarat shoe......
.......sure beats that measly HE, don't it?

If this so called "Law of Series, is actually a measurable law that really exists, then it should also apply equally to six deck games, except that it doesn't, doesn't even come close. It must rank as one of the biggest misunderstandings you have ever posted. To state that over the course of 70, 80 hands that adherence to some statistical fantasy law and that is enough to overcome the HE, belongs in the utmost regions of gamblers fallacies.