The chicken of the egg?.....
Quote: GBVThere are many ways other than counting.
Really awesome post, thank you very much GBV. You nicely summarized the many angles of potential advantage, while always keeping alert to how your actions are perceived by the house.
Quote: gr8player
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.
Sorry, these two statements do not logically follow. EITHER you have the house edge on the wager or you do not. You can't have it both ways.
Quote:Make no mistake of it, thecesspit; if I felt otherwise, I would cease to play the game.
No matter, but again you are falling into another logical fallacy.
The physics of what is luck clearly shows that it wasn't luck that caused an outcome. The initial trajectory, gravity, friction and a host of other measurable qualities all played a part in the outcome.
The Past, Present and Future are created at the same time. This effects our ability to make choices out of sheer free will. I see this often in my own life. Not just with breathing, pulse and body movements.
I lean towards the physics side. The 2nd example is more of the quantum side. It deals with the big bang. In the beginning, there was nothing. Then there was a point of infinite mass. It expanded and created everything. The Past, Present and Future.
I am expecting continued success. I've only played baccarat 7-10 times. I think it's something I can work with, but I'm not in a situation where I can play around to see if I can find something that works for me.
Quote: thecesspitSorry, these two statements do not logically follow. EITHER you have the house edge on the wager or you do not. You can't have it both ways.
Hello, thecesspit.
I"m not quite sure if it's merely a matter of semantics or not, but I just don't understand your quoted reply.
Why must I necessarily "have the house edge on the wager"? I believe that the casino maintains that mathematically proven edge at all times, does it not? Is there ever a wager I can make that is unaffected by their HE?
So, I'm confused by your response, my friend.
Unless it is this that you are trying to convey:
If I cannot show a mathematical edge either equal to or greater than the casino's HE, I am doomed to failure.
To which I must respond thusly:
I am a reasonably intelligent man, and even rather adept at math. But, even with that said, I haven't the capability and/or knowledge to present my case, mathematically. Perhaps there might be such an equation, but, if there is, I know not how to calculate it.
But here's what I do know: I utilize a rather strategic methodology that is focused on correct "timing" (for lack of a better word) in order to put myself in a rather positive position; based not upon any individual bet, rather my totality of bets and their amounts over the long term.
I do not play a static game, thecesspit, rather, I am a moving target. Very tough to corner a moving target.....
My nomination for the most ignorant post of the year.
Then there was a "mass of infinite density". It expanded and created everything. The Past, Present and Future.
Should be,
In the beginning, there was nothing. Then there was a "point of infinite mass". It expanded and created everything. The Past, Present and Future.
Buzzard said,
" The Past, Present and Future are created at the same time."
My nomination for the most ignorant post of the year.
Try doing anything without thinking about it first.
Quote: gr8playerHello, thecesspit.
I"m not quite sure if it's merely a matter of semantics or not, but I just don't understand your quoted reply.
I mean, more precisely, either every bet is made with the House Edge affecting it or not every bet does.
Quote:Why must I necessarily "have the house edge on the wager"? I believe that the casino maintains that mathematically proven edge at all times, does it not? Is there ever a wager I can make that is unaffected by their HE?
You seem to claim there is. A series of bets at the house edge will also have the house edge on them.
Quote:I am a reasonably intelligent man, and even rather adept at math. But, even with that said, I haven't the capability and/or knowledge to present my case, mathematically. Perhaps there might be such an equation, but, if there is, I know not how to calculate it.
But here's what I do know: I utilize a rather strategic methodology that is focused on correct "timing" (for lack of a better word) in order to put myself in a rather positive position; based not upon any individual bet, rather my totality of bets and their amounts over the long term.
A series of negatives cannot be added together to make a positive. If every individual bets is made with the house edge (negative expected value) then the totality of the bets also has a negative expected value. You cannot shake that. Therefore if your method is valid, some of the bets in it must have a positive expected value or it is just a mirage.
Very simple, and I'd expect someone adept at math can understand that.
Quote: thecesspitA series of negatives cannot be added together to make a positive.
Such a simple, powerful concept, but nobody cares, LOL.
Math gets no respect.
Quote: thecesspitA series of negatives cannot be added together to make a positive. If every individual bets is made with the house edge (negative expected value) then the totality of the bets also has a negative expected value. You cannot shake that. Therefore if your method is valid, some of the bets in it must have a positive expected value or it is just a mirage.
Very simple, and I'd expect someone adept at math can understand that.
I most certainly do understand that, and have made that rather clear throughout my threads. I've no issue with the HE.
It's me, my play, my results that I have the issue with. Are some of my bets really "positive expectations" for me? Which ones? And, if so, I'd calculate that how?
Or, as you put it, is it all merely a "mirage"?
Geez, thecesspit, I'd hate to think so. I've put so much time and effort into my Bac play. I've developed a strategic mode of play that works so well for me, because it suits my personal preferrences: Patience and Discipline and Conservatism and Preferred Trends and Variances and Money Management and a good, solid Long Term View of this game. I'm playing to my strengths. (Sidenote: That's another thread subject I could open...if only I hadn't been asked not to do so by our esteemed Admin.)
I like my play, and I'll continue as long as the "good stays good", thusly averting my eyes from any "mirage".
Quote: thecesspitTherefore if your method is valid, some of the bets in it must have a positive expected value or it is just a mirage.
.
GR8 thinks he has a positive edge, but he has no idea
where it comes from. So he goes on and on about
nothing, hoping to stumble onto his edge in his ramblings
here. If you can't identify your edge, you don't have
one. You have a combination of luck and limited play,
waiting to even itself out someday.
I've heard older guys say they did nothing but have
winning sessions for as long as 10 years, having no
idea what their edge was or how they got it. Then
it all ended and they haven't been able to win since.
It's an anomaly, happens all the time in gambling.
Wrong....Not True.Quote: EvenBob. If you can't identify your edge, you don't have
one. .
However in Gplayers case he probably has ZERO edge.
Quote: AxelWolfWrong....Not True.
.
If you can't identify your edge you PROBABLY don't
have one. Is that OK?
Quote: EvenBobGR8 thinks he has a positive edge, but he has no idea
where it comes from. If you can't identify your edge, you don't have
one.
What I really said was that I cannot quantify my edge, I can't put a number to it.
That's a far cry from stating that I have no edge.
Comprehension, EvenBob, comprehension. Understand exactly what you're reading about a member (and that does not allow you to take single quotes out of context of their true meaning) before simply stating your personal opinions wrought with your personal agenda(s).
Quote: gr8playerI most certainly do understand that, and have made that rather clear throughout my threads. I've no issue with the HE.
It's me, my play, my results that I have the issue with. Are some of my bets really "positive expectations" for me? Which ones? And, if so, I'd calculate that how?
There's at least one way could approximate it, if you keep good records. You also be able to show against the null-hypothesis whether your choices are better than chance.
Quote:
Or, as you put it, is it all merely a "mirage"?
Geez, thecesspit, I'd hate to think so.
People hate it when they put a long time and effort into something, but find it was futile. They will do all sorts of gymnastics to avoid the conclusion that their own self built up constructs were false.
Quote:I've put so much time and effort into my Bac play. I've developed a strategic mode of play that works so well for me, because it suits my personal preferrences: Patience and Discipline and Conservatism and Preferred Trends and Variances and Money Management and a good, solid Long Term View of this game. I'm playing to my strengths. (Sidenote: That's another thread subject I could open...if only I hadn't been asked not to do so by our esteemed Admin.)
I like my play, and I'll continue as long as the "good stays good", thusly averting my eyes from any "mirage".
You can like it. Doesn't make it correct or logical or proven or that anything you say is worth much more than a bunch of electronic noise. All the other things you mention are just more of the gymnastics you are doing to justify your fallacious assumptions, or if you want to be more optimistic, things you are avoiding that could reveal a deeper and better method of play.
Quote: gr8playerWhat I really said was that I cannot quantify my edge,.
You also can't identify it. That's part of the reason
you're here, I know you well enough to know its
not all ego. You hope by talking it out and getting
discussion, you'll stumble onto your edge. Good
luck with that.
You really can't know how to fully
exploit any game until you know exactly why and
where your edge comes from. That's what Thorp
did in 'Beat the Dealer'. There were card counters
long before Thorp came along, all he did was show
them how and why they had an edge and he changed
the game forever.
Quote: gr8playerWhat I really said was that I cannot quantify my edge, I can't put a number to it.
Teacher, if you have an edge, then how did you lose $250,000?
Quote: thecesspitThere's at least one way could approximate it, if you keep good records. You also be able to show against the null-hypothesis whether your choices are better than chance.
I keep meticulous records, thecesspit. I know every stat that I deem important, all the percentages, but I don't know that I can calculate any particular mathematical edge.
Quote: thecesspitPeople hate it when they put a long time and effort into something, but find it was futile. They will do all sorts of gymnastics to avoid the conclusion that their own self built up constructs were false.
Quote:
I did put in alot of time and effort, but I don't deem it any lesson in futility. And I don't fool myself, nor others. I'm not avoiding any conclusions; rather, I'm awaiting them.....only time will tell.Quote: thecesspitYou can like it. Doesn't make it correct or logical or proven or that anything you say is worth much more than a bunch of electronic noise. All the other things you mention are just more of the gymnastics you are doing to justify your fallacious assumptions, or if you want to be more optimistic, things you are avoiding that could reveal a deeper and better method of play.
What you label as "gymnastics" (again, exercises in futility), I deem vital to my success. Ingredients in a recipe, if you will, that would never taste as good without every single one of them. My "player's edges", if you will. No, not mathematical edges, at least not that I can figure....but edges nonetheless.
Look, I know what I'm dealing with 'round here. The math must add up, or the math will bury you under. I get it. I know I'm not preaching to the choir. But, that all said, I trust you guys can come to the realization that I simply wouldn't be posting in a forum such as this one if I truly weren't convinced of my way, my Bac play, to be as reliable and stable as your math is to you.
Quote: gr8playerI keep meticulous records
So did you lose $250,000 or $249,999?
Quote: gr8playerI keep meticulous records, thecesspit. I know every stat that I deem important, all the percentages, but I don't know that I can calculate any particular mathematical edge.
Really? You can't think of a way to use real, random data to estimate the actual probability?
If you've got the amount of data you claim, it'd be quite easy and you can use various tools to then work out the error on your estimate EVs, and likely hood that you have a true effect rather than variance of the null hypothesis.
This would be the same sort of techniques for trying to prove/disprove a dice influencer's rolls.
A little bit of research and reading may help you massively on this topic. Finding an underlying effect in messy data is a general problem in all sorts of research.
One more quick question, if you'd be so inclined:
If I were to have certain "preferred trend plays" that carry strike rates of better than 50% (52-53%), and I know their avg loss streaks and avg drawdowns, would I then be able to combine those stats, somehow, and come up with an edge that I could put a number on?
(Sorry...I know I said "one more"....but just one more)
PartII: Would I be able to make a separate calculation for AFTER the "preferred play" hit the nadir (its lowest point) either in loss streak or drawdown?
(Methinks you're 'bout to scream "gambler's fallacy", but can you just put that notion aside and respond accordingly?)
Thank you in advance for your assistance, thecesspit.
Quote: gr8playerthecesspit, thanks for taking the time and interest to respond.
One more quick question, if you'd be so inclined:
If I were to have certain "preferred trend plays" that carry strike rates of better than 50% (52-53%), and I know their avg loss streaks and avg drawdowns, would I then be able to combine those stats, somehow, and come up with an edge that I could put a number on?
You don't need to use averages. Pre-selecting the 52-53% strike rates is tricky... because you would naturally be data mining out all the good trends. You would have to track on -all your plays- for a period. Or use one half of your data to decide your 'good bets' and test using the other half of the data.
Quote:(Sorry...I know I said "one more"....but just one more)
PartII: Would I be able to make a separate calculation for AFTER the "preferred play" hit the nadir (its lowest point) either in loss streak or drawdown?
(Methinks you're 'bout to scream "gambler's fallacy", but can you just put that notion aside and respond accordingly?)
Thank you in advance for your assistance, thecesspit.
Possibly. Without understanding exactly what you mean by your streaks.
You would have to be -very- careful about data mining and selecting data to fit facts, rather than the other way around. The less data you have, the more the potential error(*) in your calculations
Say for example you have a play X. Play X is "after three Bankers and Player, bet Banker". You could work how often Banker hits. You could then break down these into - Banker Hits after previous Play X was a failure, Banker Hits after two previous Play X was a failure, and so forth.
These numbers will have less previous data, so more error associated with the estimate of your strike rate.
(*) not error in method of calculating, but how much +/- the true value your estimation is going to be.
Again, dive into the state of the art of estimating probabilities based on messy data. There's a world of data out there. I will tell you that your method of generating any numbers will be questioned, cos there lies many traps that one can fall into for pre-selecting data that fits a story, not the other way around.
Quote: gr8playerIf I were to have certain "preferred trend plays" that carry strike rates of better than 50% (52-53%), and I know their avg loss streaks and avg drawdowns, would I then be able to combine those stats, somehow, and come up with an edge that I could put a number on?
If you're winning an even-money bet (Player) 52% of the time, you have a 4% edge. If you're winning a 0.95-to-1 bet (Banker, with commission) 52% of the time, you still have an edge of 1.4%. But I don't think that's actually what's happening, because computer-perfect play demonstrates that favorable deck compositions for baccarat happen (a) only at the end of shoes and (b) very infrequently. You're not keeping track of deck compositions anyway, you're assuming that some prior trend of hands will balance out so you bet based on certain hands or patterns being 'due'.
If you've kept good records, an objective analysis should reveal that both player and banker occur with very close to the frequency they expect to, regardless of what outcomes came before, and several percentage points below 52%.
And, IMHO, it serves as a fine example for all of the members of this forum when a couple of their peers, peers that are so obviously on opposite sides of the fence as it pertains to their personal views of Baccarat play, can still maintain a useful discourse regarding same. Lo and behold, it just might serve as beneficial, not just to the parties directly involved, but to this thread's entire readership as well.
EDITED TO ADD:
Sorry, MathExtremist, I hadn't seen your post before I'd sent this one. Upon perusing it, I wish to thank you as well for your interest and input. Much appreciated.
thecesspit and mathext., were very nice unfortunately, They are acting like soft a mother. The same mother that would let her little boy dress up in dresses and play with barbies. You need dad to come home and catch you, before its to late and the other boys see you.
Lastly, I avoid no questions; rather, I answer them.
If Mission146 can figure out a way (I certainly cannot) whereupon we could have me play out some shoes in "real time", I'd have no problem with that. But my computer time is an "iffy proposition", at best. I'm on and off only as I'm able to afford myself the time, given my strict occupation responsibilities and my personal casino trips. (Tonight I'm off to Mohegan 'til Fri night.)
I believe someone mentioned a live dealer casino would work.
Avoiding the question part was about you already claiming to have lost 250k
At first he had a few reasons he didn't want to take the CHALLENGE ( I don't even think he read the entire challenge) . 1 was he could not prove anything on paper only in a real casino. 2 Had something to so with someone stealing his System/method of play. BOTH concerns were addressed and with the problems being solved. I pointed this out several times. Now with no more GOOD excuses not to take the CHALLENGE, and many benefits and reasons why he should, he just avoids the question. He claims that if Mission could come up with something where he could play a few shoes, gr8prayer would go for it do it. I have a feeling if they came up with something that would satisfy everyone's skepticism, he would not proceed, since he seems to left himself an out, claiming limited computer time.Quote: Beethoven9thFantastic! So have you accepted the challenge yet?
Also, did you win back the $250,000 that you lost at baccarat??
I wish all of it for you, teacher.
Gr8player I know I have been busting your balls however, I think your a nice guy with a good disposition your generally respectful, I'm more or less joking with you. However, I would like you to do more then just talk and Show us some real play. Even if you cant prove you have an edge, just show us you can win over a reasonable amount of play. Win or lose just the fact your willing to take some kind of challenge will certainly gain you some respect and peek a lot more interest in your gr8 system and this thread.
other foums. Keep asking, he loves it, you're falling right
into why he's here.
Garnabby is already banned.
You are seriously late to the party.
But welcome anyway, hey hey!
Quote: DeMangoSpike posts as EvenBob. Johno posts as Egalite.
Garnabby is already banned.
You are seriously late to the party.
But welcome anyway, hey hey!
Thanks, it is good to see some familiar cats kickin around this place. But, I wish that garnabby jones didn't get the gavel, cuz that cat is plenty entertianing, hey hey.
Quote: 98ClubsMutant genetics, the first egg had to develop into a Chicken. The Chicken egg was first.
According to several sources, the answer to the age-old "Which came first?" question is...
