Thread Rating:

EvenBob
EvenBob
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
  • Threads: 423
  • Posts: 24014
September 11th, 2013 at 2:25:56 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

And 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 enough to succeed, your friends must fail." Gore Vidal
thecesspit
thecesspit
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
September 11th, 2013 at 2:27:54 PM permalink
Quote: gr8player

True. 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
SlackJawYokel
SlackJawYokel
Joined: Jan 22, 2012
  • Threads: 7
  • Posts: 73
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.
thecesspit
thecesspit
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
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.
"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
gr8player
Joined: Mar 2, 2013
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 606
September 11th, 2013 at 2:53:58 PM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

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.



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.....)
gr8player
gr8player
Joined: Mar 2, 2013
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 606
September 11th, 2013 at 3:07:34 PM permalink
Quote: SlackJawYokel

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.



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....
Beethoven9th
Beethoven9th
Joined: Jul 30, 2012
  • Threads: 75
  • Posts: 5072
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!
Fighting BS one post at a time!
wroberson
wroberson
Joined: May 11, 2011
  • Threads: 19
  • Posts: 426
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.
Buffering...
EvenBob
EvenBob
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
  • Threads: 423
  • Posts: 24014
September 11th, 2013 at 3:23:03 PM permalink
Quote: wroberson

The 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 enough to succeed, your friends must fail." Gore Vidal
AxelWolf
AxelWolf
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
  • Threads: 139
  • Posts: 18001
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♪♪

  • Jump to: