The chicken of the egg?.....
September 11th, 2013 at 1:41:12 PM
permalink
.....which comes first, to put it in Baccarat terms, the bet selection or the money-management?
I believe it's bet selection. I am of the opinion that one needs first to develope a solid and consistant bet selection process, and only then can one apply the correct money-management that will maximize both their time and their profit at the tables.
And, not just any bet selection method will do. One needs to develope plays that are:
1.) Statistically sound:
Just use simple math. One's will appear twice as often as two's will, but two's will appear twice as often as three's. Does any of that help you decide the "next bet". Nope. But, IMHO, that's not what bet selection is "all about". It's about consistency. Making the same plays all the time, when the shoe/table is so dispensed to, and playing the statistics. When you do that, you are able to better control your:
2.) Variance:
By playing the same, consistent bets, one is able to track their variances. And your variance is where the money is, my friends. All bets win and all bets lose, but to know roughly how far they'll "stretch" to either side is of utmost importance to any serious, long-term success.
Imagine this:
You lose on one (or more) of your plays at this particular session; might it be a good idea to increase your bet on that play at the next session. You bet it is.
Why? Because the variance is ripe for plucking.
Why? Because the statistics point that play out as a good one, because it's statistically proven to appear a certain amount of times within a certain amount of shoes.
That's why.
And that's why you must be consistent in your bets/plays. Otherwise, you have no variance if you're "all over the board". Then, you have no real money-management, no real "recoup" mode to utilize.
Oh, you can raise your bets, like most players do. Just don't forget to cross your fingers and hold your breath, as well.
But, the player that is betting consistantly sound bets......that player can rely on his stats to carry him through, if not this shoe/session, than the next shoe/session.
The math is the math. Try to design a bet selection that takes advantage of that fact. Then, when one play seems to be "dominant" in this particualr shoe, bet for it. As to the "laggards", simply track the variance on those, as well. And wait, just wait....because those are about to pop as well, and you want to be on them when they do.
I wish you all the very best of it.
I believe it's bet selection. I am of the opinion that one needs first to develope a solid and consistant bet selection process, and only then can one apply the correct money-management that will maximize both their time and their profit at the tables.
And, not just any bet selection method will do. One needs to develope plays that are:
1.) Statistically sound:
Just use simple math. One's will appear twice as often as two's will, but two's will appear twice as often as three's. Does any of that help you decide the "next bet". Nope. But, IMHO, that's not what bet selection is "all about". It's about consistency. Making the same plays all the time, when the shoe/table is so dispensed to, and playing the statistics. When you do that, you are able to better control your:
2.) Variance:
By playing the same, consistent bets, one is able to track their variances. And your variance is where the money is, my friends. All bets win and all bets lose, but to know roughly how far they'll "stretch" to either side is of utmost importance to any serious, long-term success.
Imagine this:
You lose on one (or more) of your plays at this particular session; might it be a good idea to increase your bet on that play at the next session. You bet it is.
Why? Because the variance is ripe for plucking.
Why? Because the statistics point that play out as a good one, because it's statistically proven to appear a certain amount of times within a certain amount of shoes.
That's why.
And that's why you must be consistent in your bets/plays. Otherwise, you have no variance if you're "all over the board". Then, you have no real money-management, no real "recoup" mode to utilize.
Oh, you can raise your bets, like most players do. Just don't forget to cross your fingers and hold your breath, as well.
But, the player that is betting consistantly sound bets......that player can rely on his stats to carry him through, if not this shoe/session, than the next shoe/session.
The math is the math. Try to design a bet selection that takes advantage of that fact. Then, when one play seems to be "dominant" in this particualr shoe, bet for it. As to the "laggards", simply track the variance on those, as well. And wait, just wait....because those are about to pop as well, and you want to be on them when they do.
I wish you all the very best of it.
September 11th, 2013 at 1:47:23 PM
permalink
Back for more flogging???
When a rock is thrown into a pack of dogs, the one that yells the loudest is the one who got hit.
September 11th, 2013 at 1:48:59 PM
permalink
Why are there so many different threads discussing
this same boring topic? They could easily all fit in
one thread, they're all identical. Every time you have
a brain fart, you don't need to start a new thread
about it.
this same boring topic? They could easily all fit in
one thread, they're all identical. Every time you have
a brain fart, you don't need to start a new thread
about it.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
September 11th, 2013 at 1:49:18 PM
permalink
Hmmm...."The chicken of the egg?"....wonderful thread title, isn't it? Meant so say "The chicken OR the egg...." Sorry. Mistyped.
September 11th, 2013 at 1:51:56 PM
permalink
We would forgive you if that was the only thing wrong with the post. But alas, it degrades from there.
When a rock is thrown into a pack of dogs, the one that yells the loudest is the one who got hit.
September 11th, 2013 at 1:53:53 PM
permalink
So the highlight was the title, DeMango? Alright then, "The chicken of the egg" it is. Settled. Thanks.
September 11th, 2013 at 1:58:38 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobWhy are there so many different threads discussing
this same boring topic? They could easily all fit in
one thread, they're all identical.
Boring? I should think not, at least not if you take this game seriously.
As to the repetition; I have a set way to play. Same approach, same methodology, same consistency.
One might be best served to ask themselves: Why would anyone play the exact same way each and every time?
Answer that for yourself, then you can get back to me with some intelligent queries regarding my Baccarat theories/plays.
September 11th, 2013 at 2:09:38 PM
permalink
Quote: gr8player
As to the repetition; I have a set way to play. Same approach, same methodology, same consistency.
.
And same boring repetitive threads. You know it's true.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
September 11th, 2013 at 2:10:30 PM
permalink
And I wish you'd stop rehashing the gambler's fallacy. Tracking past outcomes in baccarat is not predictive of future outcomes. (Tracking cards is another thing, but you're not talking about that.)Quote: gr8playerI wish you all the very best of it.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
September 11th, 2013 at 2:17:35 PM
permalink
Quote: MathExtremistTracking past outcomes in baccarat is not predictive of future outcomes.
True. I claim no "predictive" powers.
September 11th, 2013 at 2:25:56 PM
permalink
Quote: MathExtremistAnd I wish you'd stop rehashing the gambler's fallacy.
Every thread is a carbon copy of the last thread,
he just moves the words around. Like we aren't
supposed to catch onto this, or something.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
September 11th, 2013 at 2:27:54 PM
permalink
Quote: gr8playerTrue. I claim no "predictive" powers.
Yet you do. You clearly claim that bet selection is important, and based on previous outcomes. But then you avoid gamblers fallacy by word play.
You claim to use 'math' but then avoid any questions regarding that math.
You claim to have a consistent method, but the avoid any codification of that method as it being based on your own feel and read.
As ever, your claims are unproven, inconsistent and illogical.
"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
September 11th, 2013 at 2:30:51 PM
permalink
Quote: gr8player.....
You lose on one (or more) of your plays at this particular session; might it be a good idea to increase your bet on that play at the next session. You bet it is.
Why? Because the variance is ripe for plucking.
Why? Because the statistics point that play out as a good one, because it's statistically proven to appear a certain amount of times within a certain amount of shoes.
Gr8player can you explain to me how the above is not gamblers fallacy? I read this as past results will help you predict future outcomes.
September 11th, 2013 at 2:49:34 PM
permalink
"Why? Because the statistics point that play out as a good one, because it's statistically proven to appear a certain amount of times within a certain amount of shoes."
Show me that proof. I doubt you can.
Show me that proof. I doubt you can.
"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
September 11th, 2013 at 2:53:58 PM
permalink
Quote: thecesspitYet you do. You clearly claim that bet selection is important, and based on previous outcomes. But then you avoid gamblers fallacy by word play.
You claim to use 'math' but then avoid any questions regarding that math.
You claim to have a consistent method, but the avoid any codification of that method as it being based on your own feel and read.
As ever, your claims are unproven, inconsistent and illogical.
I "avoid gambler's fallacy" by MY play, not "word" play.
Because you choose to label my play as a form of the gambler's fallacy does not make it so; you choose to know nothing of my play, so you, in fact, no nothing of it. How then can you attempt to label it accurately?
As to my "unproven claims", that, my friend, is a true assessment on your part. I can't "prove" much without giving up an awful lot on my part.
But, that said, we all can read, can't we? We all can comprehend, can't we?
Might there be a recurring theme to my posts?
Moreover, might someone reading those posts that chooses to glean the best of their messages be better off as a Baccarat player? (Think before you simply "knee-jerk" a response.....)
September 11th, 2013 at 3:07:34 PM
permalink
Quote: SlackJawYokelGr8player can you explain to me how the above is not gamblers fallacy? I read this as past results will help you predict future outcomes.
Hello, SlackJawYokel. Thank you for your inquiry.
Assuming that you're following the advice, and playing the same consistent plays, you should have certain statistics at your disposal. Use them. Wisely.
Which statistics, you might ask?:
Avg strike rate
Avg win/loss streaks
Avg drawdown
Those stats should roll off your tongue easily and readily, and for each and every one of your preferred plays.
Then bet to the current results. Define current:
This table, this session, this shoe....hone in one the "over-performers" and play for them. Don't chase...let them appear as coming to you.
As to the "laggards", don't forget about them. Await "proof" of a potential upturn as the play hits once (or two of three). Then ride that correction.
OK, OK, I already know the hands are typing away out there, hold on a minute:
It might not work. I could be wrong. Darn it!
Oh, but wait....that's not the last bet I'm ever going to make. I can make alot more bets in my lifetime. Imagine that. I was wrong, and I lost. But I'm still allowed to play on, at the point that I feel best about it (read: at another potential upturn). Imagine that.
So, sooner or later, my variance stats will kick in?
Answer: Yes, they will.
So then the question becomes more of one about your patience and your discipline and you bet sizing (read: money management)....
.....it'll all come to you, right into your lap, if only you'll allow it to.
Just some experience and knowing what to look for, both on the good side and the bad. And then reacting accordingly.
Ahhh...pish tosh. More gambler's fallacy, right guys?
Oh, my Goodness, if you only knew....
September 11th, 2013 at 3:09:02 PM
permalink
gr8player,
Thank you very, very much for your poignant post. To that, I say, "Bravo, gr8player!"
But on a more serious note, teacher, there has been something on my mind. Something that has been eating away at me for days now. Something that only your greatness can answer, for you are the world's foremost expert on everything baccarat.
I think you may already know what I am referring to, my friend. My question is:
Have you accepted the challenge yet?
Thank you in advance for answering my question, and I wish you the very best of it, gr8player!
Thank you very, very much for your poignant post. To that, I say, "Bravo, gr8player!"
But on a more serious note, teacher, there has been something on my mind. Something that has been eating away at me for days now. Something that only your greatness can answer, for you are the world's foremost expert on everything baccarat.
I think you may already know what I am referring to, my friend. My question is:
Have you accepted the challenge yet?
Thank you in advance for answering my question, and I wish you the very best of it, gr8player!
Fighting BS one post at a time!
September 11th, 2013 at 3:09:09 PM
permalink
The egg came first. We've known this for several years.
Chickens came from non-chickens through tiny changes in DNA.
Prior to that first true chicken zygote, there were only non-chickens.
The zygote cell is the only place where DNA mutations could produce a
new animal, and the zygote cell is housed in the egg. So, the egg must have come first.
I hope this helps find an answer for you.
Chickens came from non-chickens through tiny changes in DNA.
Prior to that first true chicken zygote, there were only non-chickens.
The zygote cell is the only place where DNA mutations could produce a
new animal, and the zygote cell is housed in the egg. So, the egg must have come first.
I hope this helps find an answer for you.
Buffering...
September 11th, 2013 at 3:23:03 PM
permalink
Quote: wrobersonThe egg came first. We've known this for several years.
.
My question is, where did GR8 come from. And when
is he going back.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
September 11th, 2013 at 3:39:26 PM
permalink
ga8player You just like to stir crap up, If you had the ability to beat Baccarat you would not be wasting so much time trying to convince people. Also you would be Rich. Nothing you can say will ever change anyone's mind different unless they are retarded. Take the challenge seriously. Put up or shut up comes to mind again.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
September 11th, 2013 at 3:50:36 PM
permalink
Quote: AxelWolfgr8player You just like to stir crap up, If you had the ability to beat Baccarat....
I'm not seeking to "stir up" anything but some good Baccarat discourse.
As to my "ability to beat Baccarat"....hogwash. What ability?
Each and every bet/shoe/session/table is a new and unique opportunity/challenge. What ability? I'm not a professional athlete.
I react to results.
That's it....I react to results, and bet (or "no-bet") or adjust bet size(s) accordingly.
Ahhh...but within that "accordingly", my friend...therein lies the rub.
September 11th, 2013 at 4:02:56 PM
permalink
Quote: gr8playerI "avoid gambler's fallacy" by MY play, not "word" play.
I suggest that you don't understand the gambler's fallacy.
Quote:Because you choose to label my play as a form of the gambler's fallacy does not make it so; you choose to know nothing of my play, so you, in fact, no nothing of it. How then can you attempt to label it accurately?
By your words and discussion on how you make bet selection based on 'variance', which is based on past results, which is therefore expecting a changed based on past results, which is the Gambler's Fallacy.
I do read what you right, to see if I can glean an ounce of new information.
Quote:
As to my "unproven claims", that, my friend, is a true assessment on your part. I can't "prove" much without giving up an awful lot on my part.
But, that said, we all can read, can't we? We all can comprehend, can't we?
Might there be a recurring theme to my posts?
Misinformation and unfounded assertions. Consistently 'reacting to results'.
You seem to think I haven't spent sometime with various generators of baccarat, roulette and craps, and looked at potential patterns, variance, and systems, and simulated dozen's of systems, to look at the variability of results.... not to try and beat the system, but to understand the differences of variance and EV.
Nothing is due, and bet sizing based on past performance is the gambler's fallacy. As I stated before, I don't believe you can prove what you claimed to be 'statistically proven' at all.
"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
September 11th, 2013 at 4:10:21 PM
permalink
2 people have asked you about the CHALLENGE perhaps you can address that.Quote: gr8playerI'm not seeking to "stir up" anything but some good Baccarat discourse.
As to my "ability to beat Baccarat"....hogwash. What ability?
Each and every bet/shoe/session/table is a new and unique opportunity/challenge. What ability? I'm not a professional athlete.
I react to results.
That's it....I react to results, and bet (or "no-bet") or adjust bet size(s) accordingly.
Ahhh...but within that "accordingly", my friend...therein lies the rub.
no one seems to want to talk to you about Baccarat. 90% of the conversation is about how deluded everybody thinks you are. So why do you keep going unless you just want to stir up crap or attention.
If Your so good with your baccarat bet selection, why are you so bad at your post selection?
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
September 11th, 2013 at 4:11:22 PM
permalink
Quote: AxelWolf♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
September 11th, 2013 at 4:25:23 PM
permalink
Quote: AxelWolf2 people have asked you about the CHALLENGE perhaps you can address that.
no one seems to want to talk to you about Baccarat. 90% of the conversation is about how deluded everybody thinks you are. So why do you keep going unless you just want to stir up crap or attention.
If Your so good with your baccarat bet selection, why are you so bad at your post selection?
Good question, AxelWolf, good question.
I am, most probably, "barking up the wrong tree" in posting my Baccarat theories/plays within this forum.
As to this nonsensical "challenge"....that's all it is and all it ever could be...nonsense. My winning or losing a shoe or two will prove nothing, but would reveal much. Too much, IMHO.
September 11th, 2013 at 4:29:57 PM
permalink
Quote: gr8playerMy winning or losing a shoe or two will prove nothing, but would reveal much. Too much, IMHO.
Please share your secrets with us, teacher!
Fighting BS one post at a time!
September 11th, 2013 at 4:46:23 PM
permalink
As far as I know there is no going back.
Assuming the guy is telling the facts, the big picture says that leaves the table a winner. I can't speak for what happened between sitting at the table and leaving, but once he leaves, a final result is found. There's is one predictable outcome when a player gambles. The gambler will leave the table at some point. I say if he leaves the table a winner most of the time in the past, the future results should be the same.
If he has built a habit of leaving the table a winner, or with more money than he started with, it should be 90% in his favor. Keep in mind in order for something to be a habit, a person has to repeat the same action 50-60 times in a row. To prove this, all you have to do is ask a person to cross their arms. It will be the same way they've done it since birth. It's a subconscious routine. This is where people need to get to when they gamble. Make it a instinct to leave the table ahead.
For Baccarrat, all the winning and losing hands have been chosen for you. All the player has to do is choose which outcome to bet on.
And the phone rings with 2....
Assuming the guy is telling the facts, the big picture says that leaves the table a winner. I can't speak for what happened between sitting at the table and leaving, but once he leaves, a final result is found. There's is one predictable outcome when a player gambles. The gambler will leave the table at some point. I say if he leaves the table a winner most of the time in the past, the future results should be the same.
If he has built a habit of leaving the table a winner, or with more money than he started with, it should be 90% in his favor. Keep in mind in order for something to be a habit, a person has to repeat the same action 50-60 times in a row. To prove this, all you have to do is ask a person to cross their arms. It will be the same way they've done it since birth. It's a subconscious routine. This is where people need to get to when they gamble. Make it a instinct to leave the table ahead.
For Baccarrat, all the winning and losing hands have been chosen for you. All the player has to do is choose which outcome to bet on.
And the phone rings with 2....
Buffering...
September 11th, 2013 at 5:10:13 PM
permalink
Quote: wrobersonThis is where people need to get to when they gamble. Make it a instinct to leave the table ahead.
.
So you think that's what it takes to be a successful
gambler, just quit when you're ahead? What about
all those times you're never ahead even once, what
then, keep playing till you are ahead?
There's a name for that, you know.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
September 11th, 2013 at 5:47:20 PM
permalink
gr8player, may I suggest you try John Patrick's forum.
They love the sort of stuff you post, you would be made most welcome.
The members will happily believe you and you can preach to them 24/7.
It's a forum where all the members are winners at craps, roulette and baccarat using cockeyed systems.
The old man himself will praise you for your valuable, logical and intelligent advice.
Truly a paradise for a man of vision such as yourself.
However never mention math over there, you'll just confuse them.
They love the sort of stuff you post, you would be made most welcome.
The members will happily believe you and you can preach to them 24/7.
It's a forum where all the members are winners at craps, roulette and baccarat using cockeyed systems.
The old man himself will praise you for your valuable, logical and intelligent advice.
Truly a paradise for a man of vision such as yourself.
However never mention math over there, you'll just confuse them.
A photon without any luggage checks into a hotel, he's travelling light.
September 11th, 2013 at 5:51:35 PM
permalink
Quote: Jeepster
However never mention math over there, you'll just confuse them.
LOL! Exactly so. JP tried math once and it disagreed
with him. He never looked back. "Math? We don't
need no stinking math." That's his forums motto.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
September 11th, 2013 at 10:04:59 PM
permalink
Quote: wrobersonAs far as I know there is no going back.
Assuming the guy is telling the facts, the big picture says that leaves the table a winner. I can't speak for what happened between sitting at the table and leaving, but once he leaves, a final result is found. There's is one predictable outcome when a player gambles. The gambler will leave the table at some point. I say if he leaves the table a winner most of the time in the past, the future results should be the same.
You can leave a winner 80% of the time with several systems, but still be a net loser : you risk $500 to win $50... your gonna have a bad time.
"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
September 11th, 2013 at 10:17:33 PM
permalink
Read the entire CHALLENGE 1) he wont revile your system if you don't want him to,he won't play it, he will only verify it, he will sigh a contract saying so.Quote: gr8playerGood question, AxelWolf, good question.
I am, most probably, "barking up the wrong tree" in posting my Baccarat theories/plays within this forum.
As to this nonsensical "challenge"....that's all it is and all it ever could be...nonsense. My winning or losing a shoe or two will prove nothing, but would reveal much. Too much, IMHO.
2) It's not done over Just one shoe or 1 session. Your playing anyway why not make an extra 30k doing so?
>>>So Now whats your excuse?<<<
I doubt anyone could figure out your system from what I gathered you you don't use anything but hunches or what you believe are trends. you may use
self discipline so not to go crazy and start betting big if your losing. I believe you bet small when your losing and start betting more when your winning.
so when your losing you lose less and when you winning bet more. If your winning, I guess betting more don't affect you as much since your betting won money.If you go on a winning streak you probably stop when your up a predetermined amount or unit. When you betting small you don't lose as much.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
September 11th, 2013 at 10:48:28 PM
permalink
Can we really keep these inane threads to the BS subforum where they belong? You blather on about "bet selection" and "money management" - add 'em up and what do you get? A system! A system of adding up negative numbers and claiming some mysterious "player edge," just like every fabulist since Alexei Ivanovich.
The trick to poker is learning not to beat yourself up for your mistakes too much, and certainly not too little, but just the right amount.
September 12th, 2013 at 3:16:39 AM
permalink
GR8 is pulling your string, either that or he is "gone", "mentally gone", as if that wasn't evident years ago, it certainly is now. This uncontrollable urge of seeking attention, he now feels the need to regurgitate/reproduce a post he made back on 18th August 2010 in the Baccarat forum of the GG site. The action of somebody in procession of all his marbles, or on top of his game?
I can only imagine that with members not buying into these fallacies and waffle, the subsequent negative responses, it must take its toil at the tables, the non-endorsements ringing in ones ears especially after losing a bet or two, it has to be deafening.
Unfortunately back in 2010 when the OP originally started a thread the "Chicken or the Egg", he received twenty responses, many of them positive, this kept him going and fed the destructive cycle which he finds himself entangled and unable to escape from.
GR8, sincerely, plough some profit into getting to the bottom of it all, a little bit of therapy might do you some good.
BTW - you forgot to give this thread 5 stars, thought I would remind you.
I can only imagine that with members not buying into these fallacies and waffle, the subsequent negative responses, it must take its toil at the tables, the non-endorsements ringing in ones ears especially after losing a bet or two, it has to be deafening.
Unfortunately back in 2010 when the OP originally started a thread the "Chicken or the Egg", he received twenty responses, many of them positive, this kept him going and fed the destructive cycle which he finds himself entangled and unable to escape from.
GR8, sincerely, plough some profit into getting to the bottom of it all, a little bit of therapy might do you some good.
BTW - you forgot to give this thread 5 stars, thought I would remind you.
September 12th, 2013 at 3:33:25 AM
permalink
Had to laugh reading that suggestion. It was at JP's board were he first surfaced. Ellis Clifton Davies site would be better, I'm sure those that run the site could make a buck or two from his presence.Quote: Jeepstergr8player, may I suggest you try John Patrick's forum.
They love the sort of stuff you post, you would be made most welcome.
The members will happily believe you and you can preach to them 24/7.
September 12th, 2013 at 3:35:10 AM
permalink
Loneliness, lack of self worth perhaps?Quote: gr8playerMight there be a recurring theme to my posts?
September 12th, 2013 at 4:01:58 AM
permalink
All of those can be summed up as "something is now due", in other words 'gamblers fallacy'. They feedback information, but your so called plays remain the same.Quote: gr8playerAssuming that you're following the advice, and playing the same consistent plays, you should have certain statistics at your disposal. Use them. Wisely.
Which statistics, you might ask?:
Avg strike rate
Avg win/loss streaks
Avg drawdown
In other words, trend, what is the Bank doing, what is the Player doing, has done, 1st hole, 2nd hole, 3rd hole.Quote: gr8playerThose stats should roll off your tongue easily and readily, and for each and every one of your preferred plays.
Then bet to the current results. Define current:
Silly to suggest "ride the correction", because once a pattern or trend breaks, it only takes one hand and you still don't know when that will happen, or if it will return.Quote: gr8playerAs to the "laggards", don't forget about them. Await "proof" of a potential upturn as the play hits once (or two of three). Then ride that correction.
The thing about Baccarat, is that there is no winning system, hence one of the reasons I change my game (or underwear as GR8 likes to inform me), in the course of hygiene, last year I decided to dabble with a simplified version of GR8 mode of play, i.e trending each side individually.
While I did indeed win a few times, it literally stunk the table out, I found it a horrendous way to play, while that might sound like a contradiction. The only reason I managed to pull a profit, was due to having to run something like 4 (maybe 6, I don't recall) separate cancellation strings, resulting in managing to keep bets low.
I now comprehend why the OP has to use three, seven flat tiers of progression, not only as a safety measure, rather more out of necessity. IIRC I had my ass handed to me on a plate as each side, individually that is! at least doubled, then singled, repeatedly at the same time for what seemed an entire shoe. No bet size manipulation could withstand that. I distinctly recall posting how bad this trending each side malarkey really was in the relevant trip reports at the time.
Good luck if it works for ya GR8, you should consider putting any profit to good use.
September 12th, 2013 at 5:19:43 AM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobSo you think that's what it takes to be a successful
gambler, just quit when you're ahead? What about
all those times you're never ahead even once, what
then, keep playing till you are ahead?
There's a name for that, you know.
My recent experiences are with low bankrolls most of the time with less than 200 in the pocket. I haven't learned to leave the table a loser yet. I know it can help overall, I haven't had a bankroll with me that would hurt me if lost. I'm another one of those people who usually wins and by the time I fail to get ahead, I've already banked more money than I lose.
So if you think that's what I think it takes to be successful, getting up from the table with more money than I start with, I'm not going to argue. I have had mostly positive times in the casino.
Buffering...
September 12th, 2013 at 6:37:03 AM
permalink
Always remember to bet more when you are going to win and less when you will lose.
Shed not for her
the bitter tear
Nor give the heart
to vain regret
Tis but the casket
that lies here,
The gem that filled it
Sparkles yet
September 12th, 2013 at 6:41:02 AM
permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
September 12th, 2013 at 6:44:33 AM
permalink
But that will lead to being barred. Of course being barred will lead to increased sales in Bj books. And dice setting book writers have not yet grasped this simple fact. I wonder why !
Shed not for her
the bitter tear
Nor give the heart
to vain regret
Tis but the casket
that lies here,
The gem that filled it
Sparkles yet
September 12th, 2013 at 6:59:24 AM
permalink
Quote: wrobersonAs far as I know there is no going back.
Assuming the guy is telling the facts, the big picture says that leaves the table a winner. I can't speak for what happened between sitting at the table and leaving, but once he leaves, a final result is found. There's is one predictable outcome when a player gambles. The gambler will leave the table at some point. I say if he leaves the table a winner most of the time in the past, the future results should be the same.
If he has built a habit of leaving the table a winner, or with more money than he started with, it should be 90% in his favor. Keep in mind in order for something to be a habit, a person has to repeat the same action 50-60 times in a row. To prove this, all you have to do is ask a person to cross their arms. It will be the same way they've done it since birth. It's a subconscious routine. This is where people need to get to when they gamble. Make it a instinct to leave the table ahead.
Oh my, wroberson.
I don't know who you are, personally, but this post just defined you for me as far as I'm concerned. Absolutely spot-on, my friend, and written as a WINNER.
I'm not too sure about the "50-60 times in a row"; the most sessions I've won consecutively is a bit over 30. But the main point holds true: Winning can become habitual. Absolutely.
Then, and, frankly, ONLY THEN, do the "numbers" play as "second fiddle". The positive mental attitude/aptitude will trump those numbers continously. Because you only get to that "winning place" when you're armed with the knowledge that consistent winning is surely doable IF you remain consistent in your plays/approaches.
I'm glad to have read your post, wroberson. And I wish you continued success. Strike that...I'm relatively certain of your continued success.
What a refreshing post; from someone who didn't simply multiply the expected pay-out by the expected strike rate and came up with a negative number (as minor as that number might be) and threw up their hands in disgust and defeat; again, what a refreshing post. Well done, my friend.
September 12th, 2013 at 7:05:28 AM
permalink
Quote: BuzzardAlways remember to bet more when you are going to win and less when you will lose.
There's alot of truth in humor, my friend, and your post is no exception.
Done correctly...DONE CORRECTLY...it most certainly is possible to take advantage of positive variances while "backing off" negative ones.
You need to know what you're "looking at"; you need to know what to "look for"; and it's most certainly possible.
September 12th, 2013 at 7:15:58 AM
permalink
Quote: egalite....he now feels the need to regurgitate/reproduce a post he made back on 18th August 2010 in the Baccarat forum of the GG site. Unfortunately back in 2010 when the OP originally started a thread the "Chicken or the Egg", he received twenty responses, many of them positive, this kept him going and fed the destructive cycle which he finds himself entangled and unable to escape from.
Hmm...
Obsession, noun, the domination of one's thoughts....
Hmm...so now you can post the exact date and verbiage from one of my posts some two years ago?!
Obsessed with me much, are we?
Yes, you're living the very definition of the word.
So it's rather obvious that your very own quote: "..this kept him going and fed the destructive cycle which he finds himself entangled and unable to escape from" pertains most directly to you, my friend. It's well past time for your long, long look into the mirror....
September 12th, 2013 at 8:25:19 AM
permalink
Quote: gr8playerYou need to know what you're "looking at"; you need to know what to "look for"; and it's most certainly possible.
Teacher, is it true that you have lost $250,000 at baccarat????
Fighting BS one post at a time!
September 12th, 2013 at 8:44:10 AM
permalink
....and, like clockwork, up pops the 2nd largest embarrassment to this forum....sheesh...
....between you, EvenBob and Egalite I've got my own personal 3 Stooges running 'round in circles...
...ah well, I suppose obsession is, after all, a most sincere form of flattery...rave on, boys, rave on...
I, on the other hand, will be at the Mohegan Sun for the next two days. Stay well....
....between you, EvenBob and Egalite I've got my own personal 3 Stooges running 'round in circles...
...ah well, I suppose obsession is, after all, a most sincere form of flattery...rave on, boys, rave on...
I, on the other hand, will be at the Mohegan Sun for the next two days. Stay well....
September 12th, 2013 at 10:01:37 AM
permalink
All I merely did was use the search function at the Glen. So what did you do, trawl the Glen desperately seeking something to bring to the WOV and settled on the egg and chicken thread, such very strange behaviour from somebody riding the crest of them waves.Quote: gr8playerHmm...
Obsession, noun, the domination of one's thoughts....
Hmm...so now you can post the exact date and verbiage from one of my posts some two years ago?!
Obsessed with me much, are we?
Yes, you're living the very definition of the word.
So it's rather obvious that your very own quote: "..this kept him going and fed the destructive cycle which he finds himself entangled and unable to escape from" pertains most directly to you, my friend. It's well past time for your long, long look into the mirror....
No obsession just pointing out the foolishness of it all, however admittedly you're doing an excellent job yourself. One thing I can't get my head around and something you seemed to duck when asked at the Glen. Regarding these so called 'stat' plays of yours, if you bet C will or should follow AB (AB being the trigger) and it misses, the likelihood of C following AB increases right? However if C doesn't follow AB in a few shoes when AB occurs, or within a session you limit your losses?
So the following week, your primed for C to follow AB because you got burnt seven days ago and increase your starting wager accordingly and are willing to do the same the following week if lightening strikes twice, which has happened but never a third time. While I agree it is unlikely that C won't follow AB indefinitely.
However my question is, what about all those occurrences of AB that occur while your not there??? Do these count? What if, C followed AB by 80% while your weren't there and the swing back to norm is due, which is when you decide to sit down? Or do these statistical occurrences of C is expected to follow AB only count when you are there? Always been curious about that one and is something you dodged previously, perhaps you care to enlighten us all or me.
BTW - You haven't rated the thread yet.
September 12th, 2013 at 10:04:58 AM
permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
September 12th, 2013 at 10:11:35 AM
permalink
Basic strategy is one of those things where when we are learning, we go slow, but after 50-60 times it becomes a subconscious habit. I no longer have to think about how the hand(s) show be played. Getting up from the table a winner I doubt would ever become a subconscious action. We always want to win as much as we can. For some we want it all at once and for others we will take it slowly and over time.
Somewhere else I posted I haven't learned to leave the table a loser. I understand the concept of cutting your loses, but you have to have losses to cut. My first solo trips back in 1994 between January and May resulted in 18-25k in wins and I have not lost that much since. I'm not ignorant of it, but when you do the math, if you always cut your losses, leave when you're down... I just can't see it as a win whether you're down $200 or $1000. For sure I've left the table broke, but very few times has it been more than $200.
I like hearing about people winning, gr8tplayer, it gives me hope and I haven't won in 2 years. I think the cost of the 4-5 trip(s) I've taken since July 2011 have cost more than the cash I lost. My next trip is different, It looks like I will set my bankroll goal and may have nearly 2k for a run at a $50 unit.
I've been incredibly lucky.
Somewhere else I posted I haven't learned to leave the table a loser. I understand the concept of cutting your loses, but you have to have losses to cut. My first solo trips back in 1994 between January and May resulted in 18-25k in wins and I have not lost that much since. I'm not ignorant of it, but when you do the math, if you always cut your losses, leave when you're down... I just can't see it as a win whether you're down $200 or $1000. For sure I've left the table broke, but very few times has it been more than $200.
I like hearing about people winning, gr8tplayer, it gives me hope and I haven't won in 2 years. I think the cost of the 4-5 trip(s) I've taken since July 2011 have cost more than the cash I lost. My next trip is different, It looks like I will set my bankroll goal and may have nearly 2k for a run at a $50 unit.
I've been incredibly lucky.
Buffering...
September 12th, 2013 at 10:24:57 AM
permalink
It's kind of weird that 47 pages of threads in this section of WOV and it appears only those by GR8 are rated, how did that happen I do wonder?Quote: IbeatyouracesI'd rate it a "negative infinity" but that's not an option.
