Baccarat Master or Interesting Fantasy?
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceNot just evil. PURE evil.
I am not your friend.
One word: Wow.
I would not want to spend, not one moment of time, inside of your head.....
Quote: gr8playerBecause, don't you know, I'm doing the IMPOSSIBLE! Just ask pretty much every other member of this esteemed site.....
That doesn't explain why the winning isn't enough,
that you have to be some kind of gambling hero.
You know how people react to what you say,
with ridicule and disbelief, yet you just go on and
on with it. It's like you need their disapproval and
mockery, which is a tad bit disturbing, wouldn't you
say?
Quote: EvenBobThat doesn't explain why the winning isn't enough,
that you have to be some kind of gambling hero.
You know how people react to what you say,
with ridicule and disbelief, yet you just go on and
on with it.
I am unfazed by the "ridicule and disbelief"...you seem more obsessed with it than I.
I, in fact, do understand it. I know that my beliefs go against all that is holy 'round here...namely, the house edge.
For the most part, it's all good...except when some responders go just a tad off the deep end...that can get rather disturbing.
You are correct, ties are not tracked by me, nor are they even marked on my scorecard. Why?
I don't play them, ever. And if I happen to have a bet up when the tie does appear, I simply leave it there awaiting an actual B/P resolution.
Stay well.
Quote: EvenBobThat doesn't explain why the winning isn't enough,
that you have to be some kind of gambling hero.
You know how people react to what you say,
with ridicule and disbelief, yet you just go on and
on with it. It's like you need their disapproval and
mockery, which is a tad bit disturbing, wouldn't you
say?
gr8player sure seems to enjoy the beat downs. The cat is like a Timex watch….takes a beating and keeps on ticking.
(Sidenote: Note my use of "peers" as opposed to "like-minded individuals".....we needn't agree, we need only to remain respectful, regardless one's posted thoughts and/or opinions.)
I am an avid fan of this game, and it's a game that I play rather well. Now, does that change the true odds of the game? Heck, no. Each and every bet, I'm short-changed to the tune of about 1%.
So, with that said, don't you think that I knew, in advance, that I needed to come up with a plan, a method of play, that would, at the very least, negate that lost 1%? Sure I did.
And, lest anyone make any mistake, it took time. And testing. And experience. Real table experience. And, unfortunately, money, as well.
But right now, it's all paying off for me. Now, that said, might it all disappear tomorrow? Who knows? I don't. But, please bear in mind, that I truly don't think it will. I'm playing this game, with real experience and real money, long enough to know what is and what isn't.
My play, right now, is what IS. Real as can be. With real results, just as I've reported right here in this forum in my weekly TR.
Don't you think I know that there are those of you that simply cannot stand reading these last statements of my success...that wish that I and my play would fall off the closest cliff, together? Sure I know. Heck, some of you guys make it clear as day for all to see.
Envy? Nope.
Jealousy? Nope.
Just pure unadulterated disdain for anything and everything that they themselves don't believe in.
I truly feel sorry for some of these members; I truly do.
You talk of a "beat down", TTB? These guys were "beat down" before they even got into the game.
Quote: gr8playerTimely response, Face, as there surely appears no lack of said criticism.
IMHO, those that are seeking to "throw you under the bus" (and let's make no mistake of who they are) should be ashamed of themselves.
You answered a query in an honest, helpful fashion, and are now about to be skewered for it. Shame on all involved in this witch hunt.
What was so wrong to direct her to a source that could assist her and help her to think rationally?
Kindly re-read my posted response to her. Is there anything in there where I suggested anything destructive to her, or were my comments stated in a much more constructive vein? I, too, sought only to assist the OP by giving her some "sense of direction" and realization regarding any possible Bac future for her.
Alas, Face, no one is reading nor even caring about that; not when burning you at the stake is the order of the day.
Shame on all of those involved....IMHO, Face has more strength of character in his pinky toe than all of you, combined.
He's posted his belief in what he was doing in that he was seeking only to help the OP...let's leave it at that, shall we?
Sending someone to you for any sort of advice at all is both harmful and shameful. If you wanna believe the nonsense and utter crap you spew in regards to bacarrat, that's your problem, but there's no need to mislead someone whose new to the game. Luckily Anna seems intelligent enough to file anything you say right to the trash where it belongs, but Face did not know she was that smart when he originally directed her to you.
Quote: gr8player
She could do much worse, my friend, than listening to my advice regarding this game; know that.
.
No she couldn't .
Quote: treetopbuddygr8player sure seems to enjoy the beat downs. The cat is like a Timex watch….takes a beating and keeps on ticking.
Reminds me of this scene from Animal House.
Thank you, sir, may I have another?
Quote: michael99000No she couldn't .
Yeah, she could. Like most here, I think Gr8's views are laughably wrong and misguided. But, he's not telling her to bet her life's savings on tie or anything...
Quote: gr8playerI am an avid fan of this game, and it's a game that I play rather well. Now, does that change the true odds of the game? Heck, no. Each and every bet, I'm short-changed to the tune of about 1%.
So, with that said, don't you think that I knew, in advance, that I needed to come up with a plan, a method of play, that would, at the very least, negate that lost 1%? Sure I did.
Sadly, paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 do not follow each other. Either every bet is 'short changed by 1%' or it is not. You can not negate the odds and have them remain the same.
Quote: rdw4potusYeah, she could. Like most here, I think Gr8's views are laughably wrong and misguided. But, he's not telling her to bet her life's savings on tie or anything...
There's two categories of advice on bacarrat.. Don't Play.. And everything else.
Plus who knows, she could've read Faces advise.. Mistakenly thought gr8 was credible, looked around at his other posts and all the while have no clue that it's 100 % misinformed garbage. That's if she doesn't read anything else in those threads. This forum should be a place where someone can rely on getting helpful advice, especially from someone whose name is in Green. I can guarantee you that you'll never see the Wizard pointing someone in the direction re: what occurred earlier in this thread.
Quote: EvenBobReminds me of this scene from Animal House.
Thank you, sir, may I have another?
very flexible…..is he smiling?
Quote: michael99000No she couldn't .
Technically, she could. Gr8 said he doesn't make Tie bets, so someone who recommends betting the Tie would be giving worse advice.
Quote: Mission146Technically, she could. Gr8 said he doesn't make Tie bets, so someone who recommends betting the Tie would be giving worse advice.
I dunno, would you rather have your head blown off or be paper-cut to death?
Quote: Mission146Technically, she could. Gr8 said he doesn't make Tie bets, so someone who recommends betting the Tie would be giving worse advice.
Advice that says give the tie bet a shot
Vs.
Advice that says my strike rates are higher than the math dictates they'll be, I win consistently, I've got a system that eliminates the house edge, blah blah
You tell me what's worse. Giving someone a general overall belief that they can win consistently is much more damaging in my opinion. Betting the tie, it wouldn't take her long to realize it ain't working,
Quote: michael99000You tell me what's worse. Giving someone a general overall belief that they can win consistently is much more damaging in my opinion.
Yup, this. Exactly.
Quote: Mission146Technically, she could. Gr8 said he doesn't make Tie bets, so someone who recommends betting the Tie would be giving worse advice.
The Wizard claims his site (which is tied to this forum) is about betting smart. That's the theme and he does a great job of teaching us how.
I join any forum, I trust that the moderators are well versed in whatever that forums theme is. And I trust that while they might not necessarily be the most knowledgable on the subject matter , that they'd at least steer a new member in the right direction.
Pointing someone in the direction of anything gr8 has said... Is the POLAR OPPOSITE of helping them bet smart.
Quote: michael99000
Pointing someone in the direction of anything gr8 has said... Is the POLAR OPPOSITE of helping them bet smart.
I'm not sure that's true. GR8 says things like after a streak that goes PBPPPPBP, B is a 55% favorite so you should bet on B. Of course, the rest of us know that math is real and p and b are approximately equally likely. But, given that they're approximately equally likely, what harm is done by the voodoo?
Quote: rdw4potusI'm not sure that's true. GR8 says things like after a streak that goes PBPPPPBP, B is a 55% favorite so you should bet on B. Of course, the rest of us know that math is real and p and b are approximately equally likely. But, given that they're approximately equally likely, what harm is done by the voodoo?
As has been stated before, the harm is that you trick people into thinking that they can win long-term, and so they do stupid things like set aside a large amount of money for gambling (thinking of it as an "investment") or quit their jobs.
When you are gambling with an edge, the money can be seen as an investment. When you are following this gr8-voodoo-nonsense, it's just "fun money" that you are going to lose. It's important to be able to tell them apart.
Quote: rdw4potusI'm not sure that's true. GR8 says things like after a streak that goes PBPPPPBP, B is a 55% favorite so you should bet on B. Of course, the rest of us know that math is real and p and b are approximately equally likely. But, given that they're approximately equally likely, what harm is done by the voodoo?
The harm, as it were, would be leading you to delude yourself into believing that you have some mystical way to beat the game -- as gr8player says, he is "aware" of the house edge but it doesn't apply to him, or some such nonsense -- and then using that fallacious thinking to justify betting more because you're more likely to win.
Pseudomath and its cousin pseudoscience are all failures of critical thinking. It's the same logic that leads mothers to avoid vaccinating their children due to misplaced fears brought on by a few idiot celebrities, and now guess what? Mumps is back. At Ohio State, of all places.
Don't give gr8player or anyone else who spouts disprovable nonsense the same pulpit as those idiot celebrities. Pseudomath does not deserve the same respect as rigorous, critical thinking. It is not an equivalent alternative.
Quote: michael99000
Pointing someone in the direction of anything gr8 has said... Is the POLAR OPPOSITE of helping them bet smart.
I agree with that, of course. It is possible to count Banker/Player, although it is extremely rare to find yourself in a positive situation, and as Wizard has said, "...Baccarat, for all practical purposes, is not a countable game." On the flip side of that, it's not rare for one bet or another to have a House Edge of less than 1% working against you, or for Player to be a better bet than Banker, playing a few sessions on the WoO Free Game will demonstrate that in a hurry.
If one were obsessed with Baccarat, then one might develop a counting system for the game to reduce the overall HE against them. While the player would not be playing at an advantage, (unless the player were to bet EXTREMELY rarely, and then the edge is negligible) at least the player could reduce the House Edge against him/her. I may be mistaken, but I would suggest that Wizard might recommend such a pursuit if one must play Baccarat anyway as it is mentally stimulating, and like I said, it's smarter than playing Banker without knowing the count. Always play the bet under 1% HE, unless neither are, then play nothing.
https://wizardofodds.com/games/baccarat/appendix/2/
(my emphasis)Quote: djatcJust remember you're going to lose about $1 for every $100 bet. If you can stand that for the chance at making/losing money with dealers that will make you feel like a million bucks because they are paid to pander to "high" rollers then have fun. This is what I feel everytime I play a table game that has no edge. Don't get upset if you lose money however, since mathematically you're going to do so.
The mathematics don't say that. They say you are -more- likely to lose money than win money (if flat betting). The maths do not say 'you will lose'. That's the sort of thin edge comment the voodoo sellers use to then say that the 'math boys' don't have a clue.
Don't forget the cashews and Guinness, hey hey!Quote: soxfanDang the resident ap=wiseguys and mathites are on the warpath, and the gr8888888one is takin heavy fire. Time to head for the bunker, hey hey!
Quote: Mission146I agree with that, of course. It is possible to count Banker/Player, although it is extremely rare to find yourself in a positive situation, and as Wizard has said, "...Baccarat, for all practical purposes, is not a countable game." On the flip side of that, it's not rare for one bet or another to have a House Edge of less than 1% working against you, or for Player to be a better bet than Banker, playing a few sessions on the WoO Free Game will demonstrate that in a hurry.
If one were obsessed with Baccarat, then one might develop a counting system for the game to reduce the overall HE against them. While the player would not be playing at an advantage, (unless the player were to bet EXTREMELY rarely, and then the edge is negligible) at least the player could reduce the House Edge against him/her. I may be mistaken, but I would suggest that Wizard might recommend such a pursuit if one must play Baccarat anyway as it is mentally stimulating, and like I said, it's smarter than playing Banker without knowing the count. Always play the bet under 1% HE, unless neither are, then play nothing.
https://wizardofodds.com/games/baccarat/appendix/2/
I agree with all of that. And I think THATS the kind of reply that would be perfect to a post like Annabelle's. It's honest, offers some hope and advice for reducing the HE, but makes no crazy or false claims.
My general advice on baccarat remains the same as it always has. If you must play, bet the Banker every time.
However, I would be denying reality if I didn't acknowledge that just about every baccarat player is looking for a trend in order to divine the next hand. Unless you're armed with a computer that knows the exact deck composition of the remaining cards, this is a waste of time. But it evidently brings false hope to the many baccarat players out there. If the joy of trying to find the floor blooming, the tail of the dragon, or whatever, is worth the additional 0.18% in house edge between the Player and Banker, I'm not going to beat you over the head with a math book. Just go ahead. The casinos need some squares to subsidize the sharp players anyway.
Face evidently felt that Anabelle would get more than 0.18% in joy trying to predict the next hand, or riding the coattails of a perceived baccarat master. Our resident baccarat psychic is gr8player so Face was trying to match two players with similar beliefs. Even I send system believes to John Patrick's forum sometimes. It doesn't mean I endorse John Patrick, but that I would rather see them sully his forum than mine.
One might also draw a comparison to the pass and don't pass in craps. Even I will bet the pass side sometimes, if I'm playing with friends betting that way. I'm willing to take the additional 0.05% in house edge for being on the same team as my buddies, sometimes. Other times I'm feeling in a completely cold and calculating mood and will bet the don't -- no matter what.
In conclusion, I think some here are interpreting Face's post the wrong way. I hope Face won't mind myself saying that I gave him a 50 push-up punishment anyway.
Quote: WizardOur resident baccarat psychic is gr8player.....
Not really...you see, I'm actually the opposite of "psychic"; much of the time, I don't even know what I'M thinking...lol
Quote: WizardOne might also draw a comparison to the pass and don't pass in craps. Even I will bet the pass side sometimes, if I'm playing with friends betting that way. I'm willing to take the additional 0.05% in house edge for being on the same team as my buddies, sometimes. Other times I'm feeling in a completely cold and calculating mood and will bet the don't -- no matter what.
How daring of you, Wizard...you'd be "willing to take the additional 0.05% in house edge"? Let's see...that's 5/100ths of 1 whole percent you're giving up...talk about "living on the edge"...lol
All due respect, Wizard, I just don't get it. I don't get it when you say it, just as I don't get it when the majority of our forum members swear by it...why the obsession with the negative mathematics of the game? Does everyone here know that the negative mathematics are only "long run" percentages, calculated over countless decisions and needn't necessarily affect your couple hours of session time? Short-term speaking, these numbers are there to be "had" (read: beaten). It's done day in and day out by the some of the more serious players. I'm one, and I know of a few others; just not in this forum.
I happen to be of the opinion that if one were to spend a fraction of the time spent obsessing over the pennies that the casino charges On actual methods of play that just might serve to put that money back onto their side of the ledger, both their outlooks and their results would become a lot more positive.
And, as always, I wish it for all of you.
Quote: gr8playerShort-term speaking, these numbers are their to be "had" (read: beaten). It's done day in and day out by the some of the more serious players. I'm one, and I know of a few others; just not in this forum.
What is your evidence?
Quote: WizardWhat is your evidence?
He has none. They've been asking him that
question for 8 years. He doesn't know what
he's doing, and if he has something that works
part of the time, he has no idea how it works.
Not gonna happen...
But if you think that all Banker/Player decisions resolve "equally", I must inform you that you are mistaken.
Please know that as difficult as that may be for some of you to fathom, it is not nearly equal to the strength of my firm belief in same.
Stay well.
Quote: EvenBobHe has none. They've been asking him that
question for 8 years. He doesn't know what
he's doing, and if he has something that works
part of the time, he has no idea how it works.
It's a negative progression. Not only does it work some of the time, it works most of the time.
But when it fails... wow.
Quote: gr8player
But if you think that all Banker/Player decisions resolve "equally", I must inform you that you are mistaken.
.
Like I said, you don't have a clue. You think
you're seeing something so you curve fit it
into your belief system.
Quote: gr8playerYes, you got me there, that's the standard forum "checkmate". For me to give that up, I'd have to give up my mode of play.
Not gonna happen...
.
Of course you won't give it up, how can you give up nothing.
Quote: WizardWhat is your evidence?
You're just going to let slide the fallacy that the house edge only applies in the long run? I don't think the Socratic method is going to work here.
Quote: WizardWhat is your evidence?
Way too nice given the alternative replies I'm sure you considered.
Quote: gr8playerAll due respect, Wizard, I just don't get it. I don't get it when you say it, just as I don't get it when the majority of our forum members swear by it...why the obsession with the negative mathematics of the game? Does everyone here know that the negative mathematics are only "long run" percentages, calculated over countless decisions and needn't necessarily affect your couple hours of session time? Short-term speaking, these numbers are there to be "had" (read: beaten). It's done day in and day out by the some of the more serious players. I'm one, and I know of a few others; just not in this forum.
You axiom is incorrect and therefore your conclusion is incorrect.
Quote: MathExtremistYou're just going to let slide the fallacy that the house edge only applies in the long run?
Do I have to give a statistics lesson every time somebody claims they have some method to add up negative numbers to get a positive one? I don't have the time and it wouldn't help anyway.
As I've said many times before, the more ridiculous a belief is, the more tenaciously it tends to be held.
Quote: WizardDo I have to give a statistics lesson every time somebody claims they have some method to add up negative numbers to get a positive one?
Hmmm....
The casino's edge, negative numbers for us players as they are, will always and forever add up to a negative. I majored in Accounting (my minor?...an absolutely gorgeous blonde..lol), and I took many math classes, including statistics. I needn't a refresher course.
My numbers are positive ones. Wait...I think I need to repeat that...my numbers are positive, well over 50% (53 - 54%). Now, if I remember correctly in those college courses, those numbers can surely add up to a positive number.
And, thusly, my numbers trump the casinos numbers. Unfathomable, right? Can't be, can it?
Well, my friends, they even have a word for it: winning. Three words, even more poignant: long term winning.
I wish it for all of you.
Not quite, as "checkmate" means the game is over. Then again, there are the individuals who refuse to accept the fact that the game is over, even in the obvious circumstance of defeat.Quote: gr8playerYes, you got me there, that's the standard forum "checkmate". For me to give that up, I'd have to give up my mode of play.
Not gonna happen...
If you do not wish to have your "mode of play" publicly discussed, then you are not in the position to discuss the game in a credible fashion.
As I have alluded before, there are only two reasons why you would not wish to elaborate:
1. Your method has no solid mathematical foundation, and personal pride prevails when mathematics disprove your method as a viable approach.
2. You are indeed using a mathematically sound approach, much like a real AP, yet you do not wish to expose yourself for fear of losing opportunity.
In the case of #1, you lose nothing through disclosure of your method. Perhaps some light ridicule by others, as this is indeed a math-oriented site, but the simple remedy is to state that you are aware of the probabilities and that your method, although flawed, has been working for you, and that is why you hold the belief you do.
Unfortunately, this is a dream scenario for the casinos; they love system players for a reason- namely because the player continues to hold the firm belief that the holy grail has been found and the system continues to be followed even after the mathematics prove otherwise.
There is nothing wrong with "playing a system" if that's what floats your boat, but under no circumstance should you be claiming to "beat" the game without proving that you have an actual advantage.
In the case of #2, this is highly unlikely.
True advantage players prefer to stay in the shadows for obvious reasons; generally, they do not clamor for attention. Unless an opportunity has already been widely discussed (in which case it is highly unlikely that the opportunity for decent profit still existed), prudence demands a low profile.
As people here already know the casinos which you frequent, it is highly unlikely that you desire to maintain a low profile for purposes of preserving opportunities of true advantage.
Even if you were presented with such opportunity, the last thing you should be doing is claiming success, much less misleading others by stating that your success stems from fallible methods.
If #1 applies, you have nothing to lose by further elaboration.
If #2 applies, you owe everyone here a sincere apology for misrepresenting yourself.
Quote: WizardDo I have to give a statistics lesson every time somebody claims they have some method to add up negative numbers to get a positive one? I don't have the time and it wouldn't help anyway.
As I've said many times before, the more ridiculous a belief is, the more tenaciously it tends to be held.
Of course I agree, but how much of a pulpit on your forum are you willing to give those who hold those ridiculous beliefs? Why are you willing to let them slide with proclamations like "the edge doesn't apply to me but I'm not going to share my secret mysticism because you're all beneath me"?
This is very timely. A few days ago, Jimmy Wales (founder of Wikipedia) responded to a petition requesting equal time devoted to holistic medicine practices such as "Energy Medicine" or "Emotional Freedom Techniques":
(emphasis mine)Quote: Jimmy WalesNo, you have to be kidding me. Every single person who signed this petition needs to go back to check their premises and think harder about what it means to be honest, factual, truthful.
Wikipedia's policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals - that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.
What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of "true scientific discourse". It isn't.
http://www.change.org/petitions/jimmy-wales-founder-of-wikipedia-create-and-enforce-new-policies-that-allow-for-true-scientific-discourse-about-holistic-approaches-to-healing/responses/11054
Do you intend to hold this forum to a similar standard?
Quote: gr8playerWell, my friends, they even have a word for it: winning. Three words, even more poignant: long term winning.
.
Your hubris is only eclipsed by your lack
of knowledge of how the game you play
works. The fact that you revel in continually
making a spectacle out of yourself here is very
disturbing.
"Hubris often indicates a loss of contact with reality
and an overestimation of one's own competence,
accomplishments or capabilities.."
Quote: MathExtremistOf course I agree, but how much of a pulpit on your forum are you willing to give those who hold those ridiculous beliefs? Why are you willing to let them slide with proclamations like "the edge doesn't apply to me but I'm not going to share my secret mysticism because you're all beneath me"?
There are two problems there:
1. Where do I draw line? Exactly what ridiculous beliefs are prohibited? How about belief in religion? Obama's birth certificate? Romney was a lock to win the 2012 general election?
2. My respect for free speech.
Quote: Wizard1. Where do I draw line? Exactly what ridiculous beliefs are prohibited?
That's precisely what I'm asking.
Quote: gr8playerHmmm....
The casino's edge, negative numbers for us players as they are, will always and forever add up to a negative. I majored in Accounting (my minor?...an absolutely gorgeous blonde..lol), and I took many math classes, including statistics. I needn't a refresher course.
My numbers are positive ones. Wait...I think I need to repeat that...my numbers are positive, well over 50% (53 - 54%). Now, if I remember correctly in those college courses, those numbers can surely add up to a positive number.
You covered Baccarat at college, did you?
Quote:And, thusly, my numbers trump the casinos numbers. Unfathomable, right? Can't be, can it?
What is your margin of error? What is your standard deviation on those numbers? Where does the edge come from? You don't know.
Quote:Well, my friends, they even have a word for it: winning. Three words, even more poignant: long term winning.
And yet, the master won't risk squat to play more often and crush the game 'long term'.
When someone doesn't trust their own work enough to follow it through, it's all the evidence you need.
Quote: MathExtremistThat's precisely what I'm asking.
I think that a more reasonable approach might be to ban discussion on certain topics. This does not discriminate against people who hold certain beliefs.
