The chicken of the egg?.....
Quote: gr8player
Then, and, frankly, ONLY THEN, do the "numbers" play as "second fiddle". The positive mental attitude/aptitude will trump those numbers continously.
This has to be in the top 5 greatest things ever written on this forum.
gr8storis all losses be's real spunsers of gambbbbbling talks sights.
Now how to pis he out off by Crimnals of victoms . SSSSShhhhhhhhaaaaaaaammmmmmmmmme!
Bite de hand.
Nobody owes up this here big candie egoes takes pay grades by.
many peoples talks big there minds nones here does back heads up .
10x s mind/fair other massage sights at sight 1/10 tent waste time
who HIPOCRIT of thems all?
Exceping gr8'es . thxs to you friends.
Quote: ThomasClinesNo surplus us all.
gr8storis all losses be's real spunsers of gambbbbbling talks sights.
Now how to pis he out off by Crimnals of victoms . SSSSShhhhhhhhaaaaaaaammmmmmmmmme!
Bite de hand.
Nobody owes up this here big candie egoes takes pay grades by.
many peoples talks big there minds nones here does back heads up .
10x s mind/fair other massage sights at sight 1/10 tent waste time
who HIPOCRIT of thems all?
Exceping gr8'es . thxs to you friends.
Quote: Face
My thoughts exactly...
? gay8playerQuote: AxelWolfRead 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.
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.
Quote: AxelWolf? gay8player
Freudian slip...? ;)
Quote: ThomasClinesNo surplus us all.
gr8storis all losses be's real spunsers of gambbbbbling talks sights.
Now how to pis he out off by Crimnals of victoms . SSSSShhhhhhhhaaaaaaaammmmmmmmmme!
Bite de hand.
Nobody owes up this here big candie egoes takes pay grades by.
many peoples talks big there minds nones here does back heads up .
10x s mind/fair other massage sights at sight 1/10 tent waste time
who HIPOCRIT of thems all?
Exceping gr8'es . thxs to you friends.
Quote: chickenmanFreudian slip...? ;)
Bingoo!! say lot de gay of gambbling Gay rose colered glases.
No see compis normuos.
Degging owen gravus .. say waste at lived candii gambbling sight
Epethet .. gay me chickenman no Face, Okie?
Reminds me of a well used ploy from that Dragon guy from Buford Georgia who sells 'baccar sistems' for six figure sums to anybody stupid enough to buy them. Then again the Engrishy is deliberately so bad could 'killer' be about to descend on the WOV, heaven help us, if you though GR8 is baseless, you ain't seen nuthin yet.Quote: ThomasClinesBingoo!! say lot de gay of gambbling Gay rose colered glases.
No see compis normuos.
Degging owen gravus .. say waste at lived candii gambbling sight
Epethet .. gay me chickenman no Face, Okie?
Quote: egaliteOne 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.
And here we go again.....
1.) As to the "I haven't rated the thread yet" comment:
Yet just another of your absolutely baseless accusations...no, at this point, let's call it what it truly is...another of your absolutely baseless LIES about me. No one is able to "rate" their own threads. Not me, not anyone.
So, no, I do not rate my own threads, nor, frankly, anyone else's. If my threads happen to have some "stars" attached to them, then there obviously are some members that actually do appreciate my Baccarat theories and/or plays and my efforts to share same.
Yet another in your long line of lies regarding me. Stop this obsession already; enough is enough.
2.) As to your question: "...what about all those occurences of AB that occur while you're not there?"
It appears as if you're asking me about my trigger- and variance-play, and the effect of my absences on same. Simple answer:
Zero.
Try to understand: my statistics are my statistics. Mine.
Look, right now, as I'm typing this post, there are thousands of Baccarat tables dealing thousands of hands. Are you suggesting that I need to be present at all of them in order to play my viable variance game? Absolutely ridiculous, right?
Only my preferred trends matter, only my strike rates matter, only my win/loss streaks matter, only my drawdowns matter, only my variances matter...and ALL OF THEM MATTER ONLY WHEN I AM PLAYING. When I am present at the table is the only time that it all counts for me.
Quote: AxelWolf? gay8player
An absolutely uncalled for shot at me, personally. I'd prefer to think of you as better than that, AxelWolf.
And in the same post you reference my reluctance to reveal my play here in this forum.....
....for whose benefit, exactly? Yours, Egalite's, EvenBob's, Beethoven9th's, whose exactly?
By what reasoning would I want to placate those that:
A.) never could be placated...
and
B.) I've no inclination to satisfy neither their needs nor their curiousity.
Make no mistake of it, AxelWolf, I could post The Grail in this very forum if I so desired.
Alas, I do not.
And don't ask me why not....better to ask yourself and your "friends".
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.
**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.**
***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.
ONCE AGAIN WHY NOT TAKE THE "CHALLENGE" all Your concerns are covered.
Quote: wrobersonBasic 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.
I've been incredibly lucky.
Lucky, wroberson? Lotto winners are lucky, my friend.
Consistent, long term success at the Baccarat tables requires so much more than any luck could ever carry you.
You stated: "I no longer have to think about how the hand(s) should be played." So true. And so important.
When you get your game to the point where you can actually "detach yourself" from the decisions, it takes all of the "suspense" out of the game, as well as any unnecessary strain or stress. Every move, every adjustment, every decision I make, has absolutely NOTHING to do with the "turn-of-the-cards". You see, that I can never control, for they will fall as they will. But I can control my responses, my play, my adjustments...MY GAME.
I wish you continued success, my friend.
Everybody knows I am terrible at spelling, punctuation and typographical errors It is not a big deal.If It were on purpose one should probably expect some sort of dig when naming yourself such an egotistical name such as GR8PLAYER. Certainly You should be able to take a joke with a name like that.Quote: gr8playerAn absolutely uncalled for shot at me, personally. I'd prefer to think of you as better than that, AxelWolf.
And in the same post you reference my reluctance to reveal my play here in this forum.....
....for whose benefit, exactly? Yours, Egalite's, EvenBob's, Beethoven9th's, whose exactly?
By what reasoning would I want to placate those that:
A.) never could be placated...
and
B.) I've no inclination to satisfy neither their needs nor their curiousity.
Make no mistake of it, AxelWolf, I could post The Grail in this very forum if I so desired.
Alas, I do not.
And don't ask my why not....better to ask yourself and your "friends".
Please don't assume that Egalite, EvenBob and Beethoven9th are all my friends. I believe I have disagreed with all of them at one time or another, especially BOB, I think he is as crazy, as you sound. I can only imagine you believe we are all in cahoots with each other, sending secret emails back and forth just to gang up on you, in hopes you will revile your secret winning system. We all gang up on you simply because you indicate you can do the impossible. You have absolutely nothing other then creative words.
IF I named myself Superman and claimed I was one of the strongest men in the world you would want some kind of proof.
Why dose anyone care? Because its annoying and it possibly may inspire some daddy of four to lose all of his kids collage funds, chasing an impossible dream.
We don't want your system. We just want you to some how prove you can win money with it.
Quote: AxelWolfEverybody knows I am terrible at spelling, punctuation and typographical errors It is not a big deal.... in hopes you will revile your secret winning system....
Axel,
I am just learning to read your posts out loud...can't resist a gentle tease about the above. Freudian slip? revile vs. reveal...lmao within the context of the argument with gr8.
"You have absolutely nothing other then creative words."
So I'm full of baloney because I've decent command of the English language? Is that what you're going with, AxelWolf?
"...it possibly may inspire some daddy of four to lose..."
I wish no such thing, and I've always sought to dishearten those that thought they might've been ready for real casino play when it appeared to me as though they weren't. And I've always maintained that everything I do at the Baccarat tables is rather difficult and hard work.
And I post exclusively at gaming websites, where one would expect a certain "type of readership", if you will.
And, lastly, "We don't want your system."
Oh, don't fool yourself AxelWolf, yes you do.
(Sidenote: I despise that word: "system"...I play no mechanical system, rather I have a "mode of play" for the long term.)
Quote: beachbumbabsAxel,
I am just learning to read your posts out loud...can't resist a gentle tease about the above. Freudian slip? revile vs. reveal...lmao within the context of the argument with gr8.
Hello, beachbumbabs.
Yeah, good catch. He thinks he's fooling someone when, in reality, he's fooling no one. He knows exactly what he's doing and what he's posting.
Apparently, beachbumbabs, so do you. Thanks for taking the time to post your opinion. Stay well, my friend.
Quote: gr8player
And, lastly, "We don't want your system."
Oh, don't fool yourself AxelWolf, yes you do.
(Sidenote: I despise that word: "system"...I play no mechanical system, rather I have a "mode of play" for the long term.)
I think you're right, I do want your system. However, I only want your system if it is printed on some double-roll two-ply toilet paper, because it can then at least serve a practical function for me.
Gr8Player, I'm not at the point where I am going to stop this yet, but I consider what is going on with this Baccarat system discussion repetitive and tedious.
The entirety of this, "Mode of Play," discussion, for a period of months, has been based upon nothing but hints and insinuations. You have been posting shadows, only shedding the occasional light on this, "Mode of play," and that light has not been very bright. Whatever this, "Mode of Play," it must fail in the long-run, mathematically. You know it, I know it, everybody here knows it.
I'm not opposed to systems for the sake of systems or enjoyment, either. I could give you a list of any games that I play for actual money or just for fun and I could give you what system(s) or strategy(ies) I have used for those games. However, I don't delude myself, I can also mathematically explain why EVERY SINGLE ONE OF MY SYSTEMS AND STRATEGIES MUST FAIL!
Again, I've defended and upheld you with respect to the results you claim to have experienced with your system and will continue to do so. It's Variance, nothing more or less. Nothing can or will change the fact that every bet you make puts you closer to the long run, and any overall win you have experienced with your system becomes decreasingly probable, and you have always, and will always, have a greater probability of ensuring such a result by betting the total amount you have won thus far in one single bet.
Anyway, I'm going to ask that you desist with creating additional threads devoted to substantially the same subject matter for the time being until such time that you plan to divulge your entire system, with specificity, so that it can be adequately challenged, from a mathematical standpoint, and in a meaningful way. There are a number of threads you've created concerning this subject matter, and you are welcome to continue to post in any of those.
I DO? From what I understand you lost 250k with some bunk method already.Quote: gr8player
And, lastly, "We don't want your system."
Oh, don't fool yourself AxelWolf, yes you do.
I have said this many times, if you had some gr8 system you would not be posting about it on a message board filled with haters.
You would be out playing it and enjoying the spoils. Why do you care what we think? Why even talk to us about your system? If you want to talk about baccarat there are many more friendly venues to do so. Get a team together go play baccarat and win money. afterwards you can have hours of discussion with believers. You will be a god in there eyes.
AGAIN WHY NOT TAKE THE CHALLENGE? all your concerns were covered.
Quote: gr8playerAnd in the same post you reference my reluctance to reveal my play here in this forum.....
....for whose benefit, exactly? Yours, Egalite's, EvenBob's, Beethoven9th's, whose exactly?
Yes, please accept the challenge for my benefit, esteemed teacher. I want you to prove to the whole forum why YOU are the world's foremost expert on everything baccarat! I also want you to win back the $250,000 that you lost.
I've never lost $250,000 myself, so I know that must be eating away at you, teacher. Take care, and I wish you the best of it!
Then how come your posts at BF used to appear with 5 stars before the view count even clocked up?Quote: gr8playerAnd here we go again.....
1.) As to the "I haven't rated the thread yet" comment:
Yet just another of your absolutely baseless accusations...no, at this point, let's call it what it truly is...another of your absolutely baseless LIES about me. No one is able to "rate" their own threads. Not me, not anyone.
Yes, absolutely ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous to suggestion that if I test and post an FLD trigger derived from the Zumma data consisting of 1600 shoes, that somebody could take a small sample of that data set (a sessions worth) and then claim a 56% hit rate. Sure you could get lucky and play all the decent good shoes from the 1600 data set, then again you could play all the rouge shoes. A simple case of selective thinking because it makes the story sound better. You are not only trying to fool everybody here, you are deluding yourself.Quote: gr8player
2.) As to your question: "...what about all those occurences of AB that occur while you're not there?"
It appears as if you're asking me about my trigger- and variance-play, and the effect of my absences on same. Simple answer:
Zero.
Try to understand: my statistics are my statistics. Mine.
Look, right now, as I'm typing this post, there are thousands of Baccarat tables dealing thousands of hands. Are you suggesting that I need to be present at all of them in order to play my viable variance game? Absolutely ridiculous, right?
I fully grasp all of that, too bad you had to take the advantageous approach, when you could have simply stated, "I played Baccarat over the last few days and won or lost whatever", omitting the preaching, sermons, fudged statistical nonsense, l demand & expect your attention BS.Quote: gr8playerOnly my preferred trends matter, only my strike rates matter, only my win/loss streaks matter, only my drawdowns matter, only my variances matter...and ALL OF THEM MATTER ONLY WHEN I AM PLAYING. When I am present at the table is the only time that it all counts for me.
Anyway, it appears your wings have been clipped. Yeah, yeah I know, I know, "it would be a shame if you left". I did like your usage of the term "mode of play" were on earth did you ever get that from (LOL)? I much prefer the moniker "natural9" myself "great-player". No doubt with this earlier re-appearance at the WOV, the last trip was more successful than the prior weekend. So again I make the suggestion, put the profit to 'good use'! A decent shrink may help you get to the bottom of this compulsion which drives you to keep returning for more of the same.
Quote: Mission146
Anyway, I'm going to ask that you desist with creating additional threads devoted to substantially the same subject matter
.
God bless you, Pierce. I take back any bad thoughts
I might have ever had about you. Well, not all of them,
but you know what I mean.
Quote: Mission146I think you're right, I do want your system. However, I only want your system if it is printed on some double-roll two-ply toilet paper, because it can then at least serve a practical function for me.
Well, now I know why you've been made an administrator in this forum: You're a perfect representation of its standards.
Quote: Mission146Whatever this, "Mode of Play," it must fail in the long-run, mathematically. You know it, I know it, everybody here knows it.
I know nothing of the sort. Why must it fail? You base your statement on the house edge and the yielding negative expectancy. But who's to say that it cannot be overcome with intelligently-planned play?
Quote: Mission146Anyway, I'm going to ask that you desist with creating additional threads devoted to substantially the same subject matter for the time being until such time that you plan to divulge your entire system, with specificity, so that it can be adequately challenged, from a mathematical standpoint, and in a meaningful way.
Let me see if I'm understanding this correctly:
If I wish to continue posting new threads in this forum, you are demanding me to "divulge my entire system, with specificity, so that it can be adequately challenged from a mathematical standpoint". Oh, and "in a meaningful way". What "meaningful way" might that be, pray tell? Would it be so you could all tear it assunder by simple application of your "mathematical standpoints"?
Hmmm....let me think about it....I should post my entire methodology for all to read in this esteemed forum, and the best part is that rather than some real appreciation leading to further Baccarat discourse, I'll get to answer to all your "challenges from a mathematical standpoint"?
As enticing as all of that sounds........
Quote: gr8playerWell, now I know why you've been made an administrator in this forum: You're a perfect representation of its standards.
Teacher, have you won back the $250,000 that you lost at baccarat?
And have you accepted the challenge yet?
Quote: Beethoven9thTeacher, have you won back the $250,000 that you lost at baccarat?
And have you accepted the challenge yet?
I think he's said no :)
Quote: egaliteNo doubt with this earlier re-appearance at the WOV, the last trip was more successful than the prior weekend.
Hooray for Egalite....he finally got one right.
Thursday night session 10:00 PM buy-in Mohegan Sun
Never a glitch. I hit a few parlays (2- to 3-hole on the Player's side), picked up the easiest 8 units (after comm and tips) I could and returned to the Jets game for the end of the 2nd half.
Friday afternoon session 1:30 PM buy-in Mohegan Sun
Another relatively easy session, though this one took a bit longer to "get started". (I came in at mid-shoe, and I didn't like what I'd seen thusfar; no real trends holding.) But, towards the end of that same shoe, a nice "straight chop" (interrupted only by one "double Banker") got me almost to my win goal, and that had to suffice on a day where I had to leave relatively early. Plus 5 1/2 units after comm & tips.
Total for trip: Plus 13 1/2 "full-sized" units
Quote: gr8playerWell, now I know why you've been made an administrator in this forum: You're a perfect representation of its standards.
I'm handsome, too. In a rugged kind of way.
Quote:I know nothing of the sort. Why must it fail? You base your statement on the house edge and the yielding negative expectancy. But who's to say that it cannot be overcome with intelligently-planned play?
The Wizard, Teliot, every bona fide and legitimate gaming expert on the face of the Earth...other than that, I don't know.
I'm also not saying that you, personally, cannot or will not overcome anything. Mathematically, it is conceivable that you will never make the total number bets necssary to virtually guarantee that you end your life (or, more specifically, this mode) a loser. We're talking about the extreme long run, here. We're saying, "You could win, and for a long time, your system just won't be the reason why."
Quote:Let me see if I'm understanding this correctly:
If I wish to continue posting new threads in this forum, you are demanding me to "divulge my entire system, with specificity, so that it can be adequately challenged from a mathematical standpoint". Oh, and "in a meaningful way". What "meaningful way" might that be, pray tell? Would it be so you could all tear it assunder by simple application of your "mathematical standpoints"?
Hmmm....let me think about it....I should post my entire methodology for all to read in this esteemed forum, and the best part is that rather than some real appreciation leading to further Baccarat discourse, I'll get to answer to all your "challenges from a mathematical standpoint"?
As enticing as all of that sounds........
You are over-generalizing my statement. If you wish to post new threads in which the topic is your Baccarat system, or any other non-specific Baccarat system, I am asking you not to create those threads, but rather, to use your existing ones. If you wish to create new threads on any other topic, as permitted by the Rules, feel free to do so.
Quote: gr8player
If I wish to continue posting new threads in this forum, you are demanding me to "divulge my entire system, with specificity, so that it can be adequately challenged from a mathematical standpoint". ...
Different forum, different rules. If you want to blather
on about nothing, go back to GG. We both did a lot
of that for years. Here its a different story, put up or
shut up is the rule of the day.
Quote: gr8player
I know nothing of the sort. Why must it fail? You base your statement on the house edge and the yielding negative expectancy. But who's to say that it cannot be overcome with intelligently-planned play?
The mathematics, of course, show that intelligent play makes no difference. So, pretty much 90% of the posters here say 'it cannot be over come with intelligent play'. Many of those posters have pretty advanced knowledge of gaming systems. So, those people are saying it cannot be overcome with intelligent play.
Really, you have to show which axioms of basic probability you are rejecting to reject the notion that a series of negative expectation bets can make a positive expectation.
You can't do that, so naturally your ideas will be rejected here. Maybe we are all the fools, but you've made a very bad case for the 'intelligent play' apart from reproduce the gambler's fallacy multiple times, and then claim that you haven't fallen into that trap. Shrug, your loss or ours.
I think the message is; don't start new threads based on mysterious riddles, which are only created for "look at me, look at me", effect. Or did you really want to litter WOV with weekly trip reports telling everybody you won 6.25 units after tips with little else?Quote: gr8playerIf I wish to continue posting new threads in this forum, you are demanding me to "divulge my entire system, with specificity, so that it can be adequately challenged from a mathematical standpoint". Oh, and "in a meaningful way". What "meaningful way" might that be, pray tell? Would it be so you could all tear it assunder by simple application of your "mathematical standpoints"?
Quickly, trawl the GG archives for some new stuff to bring to the WOV, oops you tried that one already.
Then hows about a game of "guess what came next", I've heard rumours you're pretty good that. Hey 8 units off a shrinks bill could be a deal breaker!
Doesn't take a genius to figure out, 5 days of no hear after a trip usually means one thing.Quote: gr8playerHooray for Egalite....he finally got one right.
13.5 units should pay for at least the first session, consult the yellow pages, go for it my man.
All your doing is experiencing the common highs and lows that any regular gambler goes through. You've been at those tables for so long now, forgetting losses and not remembering losing parlay attempts has now become an art. So you win a few parlays, winning 8 bets and losing 14 is soon forgotten. Your getting carried away with the "here and now" conveniently forgetting the bigger picture, while claiming to have an edge. Therapy might help you clear the clouds.Quote: gr8playerNever a glitch. I hit a few parlays (2- to 3-hole on the Player's side), picked up the easiest 8 units (after comm and tips) I could and returned to the Jets game for the end of the 2nd half.
WOW My Man awesome, I'm awestruck dude, I really am.Quote: gr8player"full-sized" units
Quote: thecesspitI think he's said no :)
Damn. ;)
Quote: egalite....winning 8 bets and losing 14 is soon forgotten. Your getting carried away with the "here and now" conveniently forgetting the bigger picture
Never. I am an absolute nut about that...the "big picture" is EVERYTHING to me.
My losses are never forgotten; rather, they are recouped. Always. In my book, a win is not a win if it didn't cancel out any prior loss.
That's why limiting losses is paramount for my sort of play, for I must keep my recoups doable.
And when you're successful at recouping losses, you're left with your many (albeit smaller) many more "plus" sessions as profit.
Quote: gr8playerMy losses are never forgotten; rather, they are recouped.
Teacher, how long did it take you to win back the $250,000 that you lost at baccarat??
new threads, but you have dozens of old threads
you can revive that are all identical. Theoretically
you could continue here talking about nothing forever.
I don't think one should have to prove anything with mathematics. Just simply prove you are beating the casinos continuously in a way that greatly defies the odds. Who knows perhaps he has stumbled onto some non random shuffle or something and even he dose not realize it. I have known seemingly crazy people claim they were seeing patterns in various video casino games. Only to find out later they were on to something because the machines were flawed.Quote: Mission146
Anyway, I'm going to ask that you desist with creating additional threads devoted to substantially the same subject matter for the time being until such time that you plan to divulge your entire system, with specificity, so that it can be adequately challenged, from a mathematical standpoint, .
Quote: AxelWolfI don't think one should have to prove anything with mathematics. Just simply prove you are beating the casinos continuously in a way that greatly defies the odds. Who knows perhaps he has stumbled onto some non random shuffle or something and even he dose not realize it. I have known seemingly crazy people claim they were seeing patterns in various video casino games. Only to find out later they were on to something because the machines were flawed.
You can show the flaw with mathematics (and in this case, show the advantage by rejecting the axiom that random means previous results don't affect the future).
Once we got into cross shoe statistical tracking, the interest completely wanes... if event X hasn't happened in 4 shoes, and usually happens every 5 shoes.... then... what? There's no possible correlation between the shoes. Whereas intra-shoe... it's just hugely unlikely rather than impossible.
Never smarten up a chump is my FIRST rule.
Why is the main thread on baccarat on this page full of crap about methods which don't work?
Sounds like gr8player has a brother.
Quote: Beethoven9th"There are dozens of ways to beat baccarat with a valid, scientifically legitimate edge."
Sounds like gr8player has a brother.
Not quite. GBV is an actual, experienced AP, I believe.
I'd love to hear more about beating baccarat, since I haven't really paid much attention to the game.
Quote: Beethoven9th"There are dozens of ways to beat baccarat with a valid, scientifically legitimate edge."
Sounds like gr8player has a brother.
No, GBV has a counting system that can beat the tie bet. With all due respect to GBV, it's time-consuming and not worth a ton in EV, on an hourly basis. I should imagine that GBV has any number of counting systems he employs on side bets, though, and some of these have been found to have strong value.
Quote: thecesspitYou can show the flaw with mathematics (and in this case, show the advantage by rejecting the axiom that random means previous results don't affect the future).
Once we got into cross shoe statistical tracking, the interest completely wanes... if event X hasn't happened in 4 shoes, and usually happens every 5 shoes.... then... what? There's no possible correlation between the shoes. Whereas intra-shoe... it's just hugely unlikely rather than impossible.
Hello, thecesspit. I trust all is well with you, my friend.
As far as inter-shoe vs intra-shoe play goes, I happen to utilize both relative statistics in my Bac play. And I've enjoyed success in doing so.
It's not as much a matter of "if event X hasn't happened in 4 shoes, and usually happens every 5 shoes" as it is, simply stated, a matter of my Laws of Series play that I will carry through on a shoe-to-shoe basis. But it's not carried through for 4 or 5 shoes, rather resolved within a shoe or two (three would be stretching it).
the cesspit, I have no choice but to play this game my way. IMHO, there is no viable alternative approach. I track variances in three forms (in no particular order): bet selection (read: my preferred trrends), Law of Series, and personal (my own current strike rates). And then I use those stats to adjust my play and/or money-management: bet more, bet less, or even "no-bet".
Does it, somehow, change the fact that the HE still affects every single wager I make? Absolutely not. I claim no so invulnerability.
BUUUTTT, can my play counter-act that HE, serving to, at the very least, neutralize it, or, preferrably, even get the better of it? I attest yes, it can. Make no mistake of it, thecesspit; if I felt otherwise, I would cease to play the game.
Quote: gpac1377Not quite. GBV is an actual, experienced AP, I believe.
I'd love to hear more about beating baccarat, since I haven't really paid much attention to the game.
Quote: Mission146No, GBV has a counting system that can beat the tie bet. With all due respect to GBV, it's time-consuming and not worth a ton in EV, on an hourly basis. I should imagine that GBV has any number of counting systems he employs on side bets, though, and some of these have been found to have strong value.
Ah, I guess I jumped the gun after seeing the "...dozens of ways to beat baccarat..." comment.
My apologies to GBV.
Quote: 98ClubsFor Baccarat its bet selection as there is a difference in -EV. Chose the best bet (Banker) and pay the commish.
Hello, 98Clubs.
May I make a simple suggestion?
If you're in the "bet Banker every hand" camp, I'd seek out an EZ BAC table, where there is no Bank commission charged. The HE lies in the "push" on every winning Banker bet where a three-card 7-total was drawn. It'll take that HE down from 1.06% to 1.02%.
Might not sound like much, but when you're considering betting Banker on every hand, it should serve well to inprove your bottom line.
(Sidenote disclaimer: My posted suggestion should be not taken as an endorsement for betting the Banker at every hand. I do not nor would not choose to play that way.)
Quote: Mission146No, GBV has a counting system that can beat the tie bet. With all due respect to GBV, it's time-consuming and not worth a ton in EV, on an hourly basis. I should imagine that GBV has any number of counting systems he employs on side bets, though, and some of these have been found to have strong value.
There are many ways other than counting.
Commission hustles, shuffle-tracking/sequencing, warps/sorts, dealer errors are some of the basic known plays. You could easily write a book on the way cards get physically exposed during the elaborate shuffling processes.
I have never had any counting system as such. To beat baccarat, you need to play pretty close to computer-perfect. I have published some information which would allow the player to get close to computer-perfect analysis.
If you can do it at the highest level there's more $'s to be made in baccarat than almost any other form of advantage gambling, mainly because of the very high limits, the excellent game conditions that can be negotiated at VIP level, lax game protection, and the rebates/other cashable comps. There is a whole bunch of erroneous assumptions about how this works in the various simulations and publications you are thinking of that significantly understate the potential earnings.
The side-bets are mostly not exploitable beyond a certain level of play, you simply can't get enough money down, and it is transparently obvious what you are doing. The main value of the side-bets is that they are a good play to grow a baby bankroll with.
