Huge table game wins.....
Side note: I propose a baccarat sub-forum. The signal/noise ratio in the table games forum is getting frustrating.
Quote: jopkeIf you are playing a negative expectation game all wins are from pure luck,.
Not true. If I'm randomly betting r/b in roulette, I
expect to win, and will win, at least 50% of the
time in the not very long run, excluding the zeros.
Luck is not involved at all.
Quote: EvenBobNot true. If I'm randomly betting r/b in roulette, I
expect to win, and will win, at least 50% of the
time in the not very long run, excluding the zeros.
Luck is not involved at all.
I win 100% of the time that I don't lose. Oh, don't count the break-evens.
Quote: jopkeSide note: I propose a baccarat sub-forum. The signal/noise ratio in the table games forum is getting frustrating.
I just took a quick look at the threads and baccarat seems to be mentioned more right now but it likely has more to do with having a good contributor on that subject and less contributors on other games.
It isn't like some dice control thing or something...
You understand this is nonsense, right?Quote: Baccaratfrom79I had a clear 17 chop-chop and should have pumped it up to at least $10k to $25k a hand.
Quote: jopkeIf you are playing a negative expectation game all wins are from pure luck, not just the big ones.
Side note: I propose a baccarat sub-forum. The signal/noise ratio in the table games forum is getting frustrating.
Not true at all. You can be playing a positive expectation game and every single time you play or wager you might get on a downswing or simply not get the cards, ball drop, color or roll you were 'supposed' to get or 'should have' got.
You realize that this too is nonsense, right? There are no patterns. There is no trend. Your illusory pattern perception has no similarity with card counting blackjack, which identifies times when the player has an edge over the house. Perhaps this thread belongs in the "Betting Systems" forum, as the claims about when to bet have no foundation. This thread is almost pure noise.Quote: Baccaratfrom79You either follow the trend or wager against it. When it is strong, there is no one to change it, likewise when it is weak. True, the pattern seldom holds for a lengthy time, but once you play long enough--an experienced player can sense when to wager heavier or lighter or stop, which would most certainly be the exact equivalent of counting cards at black jack. The highest majority of the players I see, their downfall's are too long playing-unclear mind-influenced by others-failure to walk away or change tables, etc.
Do you think the person who won the recently Mega-Millions lottery had an edge? Your "system" is nonsense and you make yourself look foolish to the educated among us by trying to defend it.Quote: Baccaratfrom79Okay, not a problem. I imaginarily won about $25k Asian New Years. Now I understand. Guess I better take a sawzall and cut about 1/3rd of my wife's new SUV off.
Quote: teliot...This thread is almost pure noise.
I kind of like Baccarat, but perhaps this is what you get when you pump out 46 threads in exactly 2 months... He has a good understanding of what he's played (which if we've all learned, from almost every thread, is HIGH LIMIT AT C.P.!!!), but perhaps he doesn't have the math grasp or understanding of AP plays as others here. He still very much enjoys the games, plays a decent enough game, and if he's not going to try to make AP plays or understand AP math, hell might as well have fun figuring out the 'patterns' in which you want to bet with... and we'll all have fun listening to the high roller ride he takes us on. I personally agree with teliot that there are no trends or patterns though.
You might find a more receptive audience there.
This board is primarily for objective, math-oriented analysis / discussion, with no credence given by most posters to superstitious beliefs such as "trends."
Of course, you can continue to post as you have, but expect increasing hostility and criticism.
Looks like the honeymoon is over.
For those of us that dont know ( and maybe im the only one ), could you or Bac79 explain what a clear 17 chop-chop is? Or is this exclusively Bac79 Bacc lingo?Quote: teliotYou understand this is nonsense, right?
Quote: Baccaratfrom79Hey, definitely not a problem. You spoke and said it. I promise you there won't be any hostility or even criticism. Zero.
There be dedicated math people here, and you
have to be verrrrrry careful in what you say.
My daughter is a math professor and it's like
a religion to her. She knows what she knows
and that's all that she knows. I tread very
lightly when she's around.
If these patterns encourage you to wager more overall, then yes, they definitely hurt you. This type of discussion can hurt others as well who are looking for good advice and can't tell the difference. It is much easier to believe in nonsense than fact.Quote: DeucekiesBetting patterns don't give you an edge, but they don't hurt you either.
There are random trends and patterns AFTER THE FACT and unless someone is a psychic... there's no way anyone is any better at Baccarat under normal conditions than any other person. He's just guessing and that's all. If you guess its trending and bet according to your quess, you might get lucky and win win win.Quote: teliotYou realize that this too is nonsense, right? There are no patterns. There is no trend. Your illusory pattern perception has no similarity with card counting blackjack, which identifies times when the player has an edge over the house. Perhaps this thread belongs in the "Betting Systems" forum, as the claims about when to bet have no foundation. This thread is almost pure noise.
Assuming Baccaratfrom79 wins and plays as he suggests, Ill assume Baccaratfrom79 has a good job or whatever and can afford to play a negative EV game without much worry. It's no different than someone with less money playing $10 a hand. I'm sure he gets lucky sometimes and unlucky other times.
He may be ahead for his lifetime, I have no clue(doubtful) . I seen his advice to AOS and it seems like he has a lose it and forget it attitude. Refresh and start new after a big loss.. We may have some selective memory issues going on. This all falls in line with seeing trends. Perhaps hes a Gr8player.
Quote: Baccaratfrom79You either follow the trend or wager against it. When it is strong, there is no one to change it, likewise when it is weak. True, the pattern seldom holds for a lengthy time, but once you play long enough--an experienced player can sense when to wager heavier or lighter or stop, which would most certainly be the exact equivalent of counting cards at black jack. The highest majority of the players I see, their downfall's are too long playing-unclear mind-influenced by others-failure to walk away or change tables, etc.
What was the rule against personal insults? I almost feel it would be worth a short ban for using the correct adjectives and expletives to describe B79 and his thought processes. Still. Let him dream: Let him lose his shirt.
Quote: EvenBobShe knows what she knows
and that's all that she knows. I tread very
lightly when she's around.
... like when two black holes meet.
Quote: AxelWolfThere are random trends and patterns AFTER THE FACT and unless someone is a psychic... there's no way anyone is any better at Baccarat under normal conditions than any other person. He's just guessing and that's all. If you guess its trending and bet according to your quess, you might get lucky and win win win.
Assuming Baccaratfrom79 wins and plays as he suggests, Ill assume Baccaratfrom79 has a good job or whatever and can afford to play a negative EV game without much worry. It's no different than someone with less money playing $10 a hand. I'm sure he gets lucky sometimes and unlucky other times.
He may be ahead for his lifetime, I have no clue(doubtful) . I seen his advice to AOS and it seems like he has a lose it and forget it attitude. Refresh and start new after a big loss.. We may have some selective memory issues going on. This all falls in line with seeing trends. Perhaps hes a Gr8player.
He's posted in other threads that he owns a business.
For his gambling, he's 100% ploppy and his posts prove that.
Quote: sc15He's 100% ploppy and his posts prove that.
Doesn't ploppy mean turd?
Quote: KerkebetDoesn't ploppy mean turd?
In the context of gambling, it means a player who's playing at a disadvantage.
I always take it to mean an uninformed gambler, rather than anyone playing at a disadvantage. In any matter, it is absolutely a term that's generally used in a condescending or derogatory manner by AP's and I don't like to use it. What's wrong with civilian or recreational?Quote: sc15In the context of gambling, it means a player who's playing at a disadvantage.
Or "square"Quote: mcallister3200civilian or recreational
Quote: mcallister3200I always take it to mean an uninformed gambler, rather than anyone playing at a disadvantage. In any matter, it is absolutely a term that's generally used in a condescending or derogatory manner by AP's and I don't like to use it. What's wrong with civilian or recreational?
I like Frank Scoblete but I don't like the word ploppy and I never use it. It was Frank who coined the term and I don't think he intended for it to be derogatory. Nevertheless it has become that.
Quote: 1BBIt was Frank who coined the term and I don't think he intended for it to be derogatory. Nevertheless it has become that.
John Patrick was using it in his books
long before Frank. I thought it meant
somebody who just plops into a seat
without any knowledge of the game.
"a ploppy is a gambler that plops his/her a** down at your table when the count is high and starts eating up your good cards."
Quote: mcallister3200I always take it to mean an uninformed gambler, rather than anyone playing at a disadvantage. In any matter, it is absolutely a term that's generally used in a condescending or derogatory manner by AP's and I don't like to use it. What's wrong with civilian or recreational?
When APers say civilian most of the time it's meant in a derogatory manner as well.
Quote: teliotOr "square"
http://www.ibtimes.com/wombat-poop-why-it-cubed-reason-australian-marsupials-square-droppings-1438518
Quote: teliotIf these patterns encourage you to wager more overall, then yes, they definitely hurt you. This type of discussion can hurt others as well who are looking for good advice and can't tell the difference. It is much easier to believe in nonsense than fact.
teliot,
I see your point, but I also disagree with the premise that B79 is advocating a betting system. He's been quite clear from the beginning that he's a recreational player, he knows it's a -EV game, and he's been asked elsewhere to discuss how he plays, so he shared that. If anything, he's simply a guy who sets a loss limit, stops when his BR is exhausted, and can get up from the table when he's up rather than giving it back. It seems clear in the thread that the math guys including you have stated emphatically that trends don't matter and can prove it mathematically, so that seems like a good discussion to have documented for like-minded individuals. I don't see the need to move it to betting systems; it's useful where it is.
A betting system uses prior results to determine the current wager, without any consideration for the house edge.Quote: beachbumbabsI also disagree with the premise that B79 is advocating a betting system.
There are plenty of boards around where people can say stuff like this and be praised. What makes WoV different is that this kind of nonsense gets called out for what it is (except in the betting systems forum, where the sub-header reads: "for the mathematically challenged, here is a forum of your own.").Quote: B79I had a clear 17 chop-chop and should have pumped it up to at least $10k to $25k a hand.
Quote: teliotA betting system uses prior results to determine the current wager, without any consideration for the house edge.
You and I are seeing the same thing and taking it two different ways, I think. He's a superstitious, recreational player who knows it, not a system advocate; he was asked what he does and he answered. You and the others have debunked his trend reliance and he's not disagreeing, but he's also going to play what he plays despite the math, it seems. I find the whole thing educational, but not harmful or spam-ish to the board.
I could easily be overruled by Mike on this, but I think the thread speaks for itself. Not at all disputing your read on his play; in fact, it's a good, periodic reminder of the fallacy of trends in a no-decision game, and I appreciate your expert participation.
Quote: EvenBobNot true. If I'm randomly betting r/b in roulette, I
expect to win, and will win, at least 50% of the
time in the not very long run, excluding the zeros.
Luck is not involved at all.
Quote: Baccaratfrom79Deleted per PM request
Someone actually sent you a PM requesting you to delete the post that started this thread?
Quote: teliotIf these patterns encourage you to wager more overall, then yes, they definitely hurt you.
I thought, on this board, that we are to look at the EV of a wager, not the actual monetary amount of a wager…?
What don't you get? if he spins 1 time in (the not very long run)he has a 50% chance of winning minus the green (I assume he said minus the green because he doesn't know that it's about 47.3 % of the time on 00 roulette )Quote: djatc
He should have a better chance to win, and will win in the not very long run way more often than that if he walks away anytime hes up. he could just use Marty and have a huge chance of being a winner. Find a single zero roulette (I know you know of at least one) you can have over a 99% chance of winning. unfortunately the 1 time you get screwed you will cry.
Quote: aceofspadesI thought, on this board, that we are to look at the EV of a wager, not the actual monetary amount of a wager…?
The perceived EV inherent in randomness.
But, the point of "regression to the mean" is that it doesn't happen with enough expectation to be of actual use in overcoming "luck".
BBB No matter what he has said in the past some of his posts such as this(read it careful)Quote: beachbumbabsteliot,
I see your point, but I also disagree with the premise that B79 is advocating a betting system. He's been quite clear from the beginning that he's a recreational player, he knows it's a -EV game, and he's been asked elsewhere to discuss how he plays, so he shared that. If anything, he's simply a guy who sets a loss limit, stops when his BR is exhausted, and can get up from the table when he's up rather than giving it back. It seems clear in the thread that the math guys including you have stated emphatically that trends don't matter and can prove it mathematically, so that seems like a good discussion to have documented for like-minded individuals. I don't see the need to move it to betting systems; it's useful where it is.
sound exactly like something notorious voodoo system gr8player would say. some of Bac79's post suggest he has a winning system.Quote: Baccaratfrom79You either follow the trend or wager against it. When it is strong, there is no one to change it, likewise when it is weak. True, the pattern seldom holds for a lengthy time, but once you play long enough--an experienced player can sense when to wager heavier or lighter or stop, which would most certainly be the exact equivalent of counting cards at black jack. The highest majority of the players I see, their downfall's are too long playing-unclear mind-influenced by others-failure to walk away or change tables, etc.
Quote: AxelWolfWhat don't you get?.
The math says when flipping a coin
I'll see heads 50% of the time in the
not very long run. Luck has zero to
do with it.
Quote: EvenBobLuck has zero to do with it.
Good grief.
Quantum science explained or slayed, at last.
When the EV is negative, either don't bet (if you are not an AP or are Wonging out) or bet your minimum (wating bet) until your advantage play opportunity happens. If you have the edge, bet the appropriate Kelly fraction. If you think that "this board" has a different opinion on optimal wagering, I'd like to know what "this board" thinks.Quote: aceofspadesI thought, on this board, that we are to look at the EV of a wager, not the actual monetary amount of a wager…?
Quote: aceofspadesI thought, on this board, that we are to look at the EV of a wager, not the actual monetary amount of a wager…?
The EV is based on the edge and monetary amount of the wager. If you are wagering more on negative/house edge bets, then your EV is worse.
Bacc-79 is a unique poster IMO, as an author of them, fairly enjoyable to read; some insight into the world of a gambler who's willing to make big bets, get great comps ... evidently something quite below a whale, from what he has said. But vastly higher roller than myself
Teliot's objection was coming, I could see it. Previous attempts to get confirmation on whatever he believes he can do hadn't gotten much response. I see he is deleting posts now.
Is Teliot right that he simply should be squashed on a site like this? Do we have the civic duty to protect less educated readers?
I do not feel that burden, but perhaps it is admirable in someone who does. Not sure.
It is remarkable that he let one man's comments have so much effect on his participation. He had many other options, not least of which was admitting he was wrong and seeking education from the incredible wealth of talent on this board.Quote: odiousgambitTeliot's objection was coming, I could see it. Previous attempts to get confirmation on whatever he believes he can do hadn't gotten much response. I see he is deleting posts now.
Nobody who plays that kind of money goes into a casino thinking "I'm here to lose 1.xx% every wager"
Quote: 1BBSomeone actually sent you a PM requesting you to delete the post that started this thread?
Where did B79's post about this go? It
was there an hour ago.
Quote: teliotWhen the EV is negative, either don't bet (if you are not an AP or are Wonging out) or bet your minimum (wating bet) until your advantage play opportunity happens. If you have the edge, bet the appropriate Kelly fraction. If you think that "this board" has a different opinion on optimal wagering, I'd like to know what "this board" thinks.
Yes, but you did not mention Kelly in your original post
