Thread: Baccarat axiom

- http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/...rdCounting.htm

Here is the link to what I found interesting. It was written by Arnold Snyder and it concerns the (BJ famous) late Jess Marcum. It is fairly long, but the thing that makes it interesting for here is toward the end, where baccarat plays its part. Donald Trump gets a mention, a baccarat whale, and in the end a real life demonstration from Jess, encapsulated in this axiom:
The longer your session of baccarat (if you are betting the max each hand, or flatbetting the min each hand) the more likely you are to lose. Take a look.

Marcum’s Final Triumph
Although the vast majority of Jess Marcum’s gambling income came from playing blackjack, his gambling studies were certainly not limited to blackjack; in fact, he analyzed almost all of the common gambling games and devices from sports books to slot machines. In the various sports books he capitalized on occasional miscalculations by the oddsmakers. With regard to slot machines, his expertise in their statistics and fluctuations led the Nevada Gaming Commission to call on him often as a consultant.


It was principally in this role as consultant to the industry that Jess continued his association with gambling long after his active blackjack days were over. Very late in his life he gained national notoriety from a consulting assignment that he undertook for Donald Trump and his associates in Atlantic City, as I will discuss briefly next.
On June 28, 1990 Jess called me from his hotel in Reno and mentioned that there was an article concerning him on that day’s front page of The Wall Street Journal. It was entitled “Tale of a Whale: Mysterious Gambler Wins, Loses Millions” and it describes how Jess saved the Trump Plaza Casino from a mysterious gambler who, in his previous visit there, had won $6 million at baccarat.


This exciting story (it even includes a murder) was later masterfully researched and recounted by David Johnston in his book “Temples of Chance”, chapters 1 and 24. Johnston provides a realistic insight into the working of Jess’s mind as Jess combines his mathematical prowess with his (self-taught) psychiatric skill to harpoon the Whale.

In view of these extensive previous accounts of this episode, I am only going to summarize briefly Jess’s part in it. He described the whole thing rather succinctly to me. He said that in winning the first $6 million, the Whale had simply not played enough hands (700) to have a high probability of losing.

[i]Therefore, Jess advised the Trump people to just “let him play”. Although they were very nervous about following this advice, they did and ultimately the Whale lost $9.4 million.
I learned from the written accounts cited above that there were two key components to Jess’s analysis of this problem. First, he calculated that if the Whale could be enticed into playing 5000 hands or so, he would have only about a 15% chance of winning. However, since the Whale made a practice of quitting suddenly if he was winning significantly, a scheme was needed to ensure that he would not quit early.


Based on observing the Whale’s mannerisms at the gaming table, Jess concluded that the Whale would readily agree to a double-or-nothing rule; that is, play would end only when the gambler had either doubled his bankroll or lost it all. Jess calculated that the Whale was 5 times as likely to lose his bankroll as he was to double it.
As Jess (via his “psychoanalysis”) had predicted, the Whale agreed to the double-or-nothing rule. Play proceeded and, of course, turned out precisely as Jess had predicted. After 5,056 hands, the Whale had lost $9.4 million (84% of his bankroll). At that point, he quit in a huff.

Finale
After his Atlantic City triumph Jess returned to Reno and contented himself with exploiting sportsbook betting anomalies that sometimes arose due to calculational inaccuracies by the oddsmakers. He died suddenly less than two years after his return to Reno.
His epitaph should read mathematical genius and gambling legend. The scientific literature abundantly attests to the former. My hope is that this article will cement the latter. ♠

The final (Baccarat) part of the Jess Marcum story. Thanks to Arnold Snyder

Anybody here care to get into the math of how Jess calculated the whale was five times more likely to lose than to win, after 5000 hands?

Too many of the variables appear absent to in that manner validate the above story.

Furthermore, i doubt those sorts of variables matter in general if one has a winning system. Then it's just a matter of optimizing rather than "tweaking" it. (No amount of further "details", jazzing-up, and psuedo-psychology matters... it would just win what it could.)

Anyway, on average and strictly speaking, the house edge on the banker bet is about 1.17%. That means for each $100 bet the house expects a return of $1.17 in the long-run. And of course it makes no difference where one plays, or when one stops play if to be resumed... each casino could expect to get the others' customers when "finally ready to lose elsewhere", viewed in that erroneous manner.

Originally Posted by Katweezel

Anybody here care to get into the math of how Jess calculated the whale was five times more likely to lose than to win, after 5000 hands?

Since nobody else feels up to it (or thinks that it matters), I’ll take a crack at it. We have all of the variables that we need. This is a pretty simple calculation which was described in the Gambling Theory thread.

http://baccaratforums.com/t3934/

We want to find the probability of being ahead after playing a certain number of hands. All we have to do is calculate the z-score based on the house edge, standard deviation and the number of hands. From Michael Hall's article in the link above:

z = (x-EV)/sqrt(VAR)

where:
x = Observed result
EV = Expected value for the sample
VAR = Variance of the sample

We can simplify that for this case into:

z = Goal/SD

where:
Goal = The threshold amount to be won/lost for the session
SD = Standard deviation of the session

We know that the house edge for the Banker bet is 1.0579% (I don’t know where garnabby got 1.17%). After 5,000 hands we would expect to lose 5000*0.010579 = 52.9 units. In order to break even we would need to win 0 units plus the 52.9 units that we would theoretically lose due to the house edge. That gives a goal of 52.9 units (You can substitute any number for the 0 if you want the probability of winning/losing a specific amount at the end of a session). We know that the standard deviation for the Banker bet is 0.93 units per hand so the total SD for our calculation is going to be sqrt(5000)*0.93 = 65.76. Using those numbers gives us a z-score of 52.9/65.76 = 0.82. That is the number of standard deviations that we will need to experience in order to break even. Looking up that number in a normal distribution chart (or using the NORMSDIST function in Excel) we get a probability of 79.38% that the player will be at or below 0 units after 5,000 hands and a probability of 20.62% that he will win.

Using the numbers for the Player bet we get an 82.58% chance of losing and a 17.42% chance of being ahead after 5,000 hands. I would imagine that Mr. Marcum’s numbers are more accurate for that case based on the observed play of the Whale and his specific betting patters. My numbers are just a ballpark figure but they are a good example of how to find the probability of being ahead after a certain number of hands/hours or play.

This formula can have lots of interesting uses for all kinds of players. It can be used to estimate the probability of winning/losing a certain amount of money at the end of a session. It can also be used to estimate your success rate in the future, check your range of possible results in the next session, or to check the results of a previous session for fairness, “luckiness” or “streakiness”. This knowledge is a valuable tool in any gambler's arsenal.

As you know, Arnold Snyder is no math slouch and he tells us the whale lost 84% of his bankroll, making your figures pretty much close enough. Where did your math expertise come from?

If you had told the whale he had only a miserable 15% or 20% chance of winning after 5000 hands, if he listened, he may have rewarded you for such intimate and advanced knowledge concerning the nature and characteristics of the game. I would need to buy the book Arnold recommends to find out more detail, but my understanding is that the whale was betting in units of $200,000 maximums. Perhaps you could have advised him that style of betting was mathematically doomed to failure. Would he have listened? I doubt it. Just like most players you see playing any game in any casino.

Originally Posted by Katweezel

As you know, Arnold Snyder is no math slouch and he tells us the whale lost 84% of his bankroll, making your figures pretty much close enough.

If you want to know the probability of winning/losing a specific amount then you can use the binomial distribution instead of the z-score. Both are mentioned in the articles posted by garnabby. The binomial distribution is better for exact goals (like 2 units, no more and no less) instead of cumulative totals (like 2 units or more, or 5 units or less).

Savant,

Sorry for the delay in responding here, but i expected this and knew it could wait.

In the thread http://baccaratforums.com/t3103/ you stated, "It’s actually closer to 45.86:44.62, but if you ignore ties then it becomes 50.86:49.32. It may seem like a small difference but it will have a big effect on your results if you are assuming a 50:50 game."

Let's DO ignore ties (at least to begin with) because we don't want "small differences" like also how slow/fast the games are dealt and shuffled up, how often we play a game; whether we use a slight progression, or even place occasional tie bets to interfere with what we first determine we ACTUALLY are winning/losing when we DO bet what how and when later... the bottom line irrespective of the time, etc, elements. (I mean that if the tie outcomes have the effect of slowing the P-B outcomes, then so too does just playing more slowly. By that logic, playing very slowly should reduce the HE to nothing. But that's certainly not the case for the player who shows up to play one big game for the first and only time; nor for any returning session player who took a month off from baccarat... .)

Hence, given the banker/player probabilities of winning listed above by you, namely 0.5068/0.4932 respectively, the house edge on banker bets (versus player bets only) with a 5% commission on wins becomes: (0.05 X 0.5068) - (0.5068 - 0.4932)= 0.02534 - 0.0136 = 0.01174. That is a HE of about 1.17% on the banker bet, as i and a multitude of others already claimed. (How could anyone as supposedly accomplished as yourself not know that most-basic fact of baccarat numerology? Or are you suggesting we bring the regular tie bets into it?)

But don't take my word for it, please. Here's a bit from the Wizard of Odds at http://wizardofodds.com/askthewizard/baccarat.html :

QUESTION: I was recently presented with numbers for the house advantage for Baccarat (Banker=1.17%; Player=1.36%). The problem is the calculations were done without taking the tie wager into consideration. In the past I had seen these numbers in a book though I don’t remember where. My question is, why would someone do the calculations like that? Is there some reason I am missing? It seems to me that this is a flawed method for presenting the house advantage. What is the best way to present to them how/why this is flawed (if it indeed is flawed). – Bill from Las Vegas

WIZARD'S ANSWER: The reason some sources differ on the house edge in baccarat has mostly to do with how the house edge is defined. I prefer to define the house edge as the ratio of the expected casino win to the initial wager. Other gambling writers define it as the ratio of the expected casino win to bet resolved. The difference is in whether or not ties are considered as a possible outcome. In an eight-deck game the following are the probabilities in baccarat:

• Banker wins: 45.8597%
• Player wins: 44.6274%
• Tie wins: 9.5156%

Here is how I calculate the expected return on each bet by counting ties.

• Banker: 0.458597*0.95 + 0.446274*-1 + 0.095156*0 = -0.010579
• Player: 0.458597*-1 + 0.446274*1 + 0.095156*0 = -0.012351
• Tie: 0.458597*-1 + 0.446274*-1 + 0.095156*8 = -0.143596

So I get a house edge of 1.24% on the player, 1.06% on the banker, and 14.36% on the tie.
Other gambling writers prefer to think of ties as a non-event, in other words leaving the bet up until it is resolved. The probability of a banker or player win is 45.8597% + 44.6274% = 90.4844%. The probability the next bet resolved will be a player win is 44.6274%/90.4844% = 49.3175%. The probability the next bet resolved will be a banker win is 45.8597%/90.4844% = 50.6825%.
The way the other camp would calculate the expected return on the player bet is 49.3175%*1 + 50.6825%*-1 = -1.3650%. The expected return on the banker bet, ignoring ties, is 49.3175%*-1 + 50.6825%*0.95 = -1.1692%. Thus the house edge ignoring ties is 1.36% on the player and 1.17% on the banker.
One reason I think counting ties is appropriate is that it gives the player an accurate measure of expected losses over time. For example if a player bet $100 a hand on the banker in baccarat for 4 hours, and the casino’s average rate of play was 80 hands per hour, then the expected player loss is $100*4*80*0.0106=$339.20. No need to worry about the probability of a tie in the calculation. If a casino used the 1.17% house edge for the banker it would be overestimating expected loss, and perhaps over-comp the player as a result.
Another reason I count ties is all the major blackjack and video poker experts count ties in the analysis of those games. For example if you ignored ties in 9/6 Jacks or better, when getting a pair of jacks to aces, then the return would be 99.4193%. Never once have I seen such a figure quoted for 9/6 jacks; it is firmly held that it is 99.5439% with optimal strategy.
Finally, here is a table of some gambling books and the figures used for baccarat.

(House Edge in Baccarat Book, Author, Copyright, Player, Banker.)

Casino Operations Management Jim Kilby & Jim Fox1998: 1.24%; 1.06%. The Casino Gambler's Guide Allan N. Wilson1965, 1970: 1.23%; 1.06%. Smart Casino Gambling Olaf Vancura, Ph.D.1996: 1.24%; 1.06%. The American Mensa Guide to Casino Gambling Andrew Brisman1999: 1.24%; 1.06%. Casino Gambling for Dummies Kevin Blackwood 2006: 1.24%; 1.06%. Scarne's New Complete Guide to Gambling John Scarne 1961, 1974: 1.34%; 1.19%. The New American Guide to Gambling and Games Edwin Silberstang 1972, 1979, 1987: 1.36%; 1.17%. Casino Gambling: Play Like a Pro in 10 Minutes or Less Frank Scoblete 2003: 1.36%; 1.17%. Beating the Casinos at Their Own Game Peter Svorboda2001: 1.36%; 1.17%. The Complete Idiot's Guide to Gambling Like a Pro Stanford Wong & Susan Spector1996: 1.36%; 1.17%. Casino Math by Robert C. Hannum and Anthony N. Cabot lists the house edge both ways.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------



And didn't the threads http://baccaratforums.com/t1974-2/ and http://baccaratforums.com/t3103/ , etc, end up similarly... in your basic errors comparing baccarat with bj, i think? (No one has to ramp anything on the positive-expectation games because no one has to play also the negative ones; and unlike bj, sometimes the P-B odds approach, and even surpass 0.5 each.)

Savant, using the "hammers", etc, you already possess in this way leads further into the "trap" i already alluded to in the thread 10 Best Baccarat Gambling Books of All Time . I would first figure out what i'm dealing with before getting out the appropriate "hammers".

Perhaps then you would have noticed the Jess article was utimately concerning, "Jess calculated that the Whale was 5 times as likely to lose his bankroll as he was to double it." Note the "to double it" part: per the so-called final agreement of the player to win significantly enough to THEN fairly quit the session ahead. Your type and degree of calculations (so far) don't show THOSE details or results. But most basically, what if that player had simply busted out long before finishing 5000 games? Or what when 5000 games aren't enough to fairly settle the deal one way or the other? Have you even used even those specific equations yourself in actual play to note when those break down? Doesn't look like it. (Anyway, "ball-park" is the notion of estimation; not of calculation. Why go through all the work of expensive equations when settling for cheap estimations, or even close approximations? Let the labor-intensive, tricky stuff to the experts when some sort of important and actual proof demands it.)

And to clarify my reply to K here, i carefully wrote to be unable to 'validate' it given we do not know "the variables" from that article wrt exactly what the player was betting how and when on which side; not to be unable to begin (more) 'speculation'. It's those variables which are not delineated there. Sarcastically speaking, perhaps one of Elvis' hooker friends rubbing up against "the whale" (from the thread http://baccaratforums.com/t4147/ ) might have caused him to push it all in on one bet... in which case he would have had his best shot at doubling up, right? And in a single bet; not 5000. Were a casino to present me with such an arrangement, maybe i would do the same and either way walk.

Overall, i still question the need, and certainly those added efforts when, eg, from other questions and answers from the Wizzard i seem to recall that even very-anomalous sessions can prove very little wrt any game provider's fairness. (Paranoid non-sense in virtually all cases. Even proved to yourself, so what? Anyway, it takes a lot less time than all that to figure out which casinos are the best ones, right? And who in his right mind plays the "home games" for big money/career?) Even already knowing actual standard 'confidence intervals' for the more far-fetched statistics is neither an element of any winning system, nor a practical measure of such's expected successes. I mean if you have a proved decent edge X, aren't you just going to get out and (reasonably and comfortably) bet it to gradually-anyway work your way up? (Beyond that for the "restless", just simulate it as would be the end exercise then anyway. And i know from courses in computer science that documentation is 95% of that game too. But the best way around any and all of this is to patiently seek out the cogent-but-elegant related 'axioms' here, then soundly make near approximations. I forget the term for that process, but i remember an example from applied mathematics called the pi-theorem (in which one uses the units of an answer to pose the most likely possible forms of its equation question, then using bits of other information to eliminate the incorrect possibilities.)) But i see nothing wrong with supplying us with more "fun" calculations. Just please pull something corroborating off the web because it would probably result in a less-sloppy and more-complete result for everyone.

Again, if a machine or its equivalent by way of a "human calculator/juggler" is required to (do-ably) beat any game to hence profit slightly (by requiring those fine calculations), then that is a waste of skills. Just as requiring millions to make a few hundred every 1000 baccarat games is a (practical) waste of money and time. All as already noted more precisely at the end of the first article of the thread "Gambling" theory... .

Finally, i hope you're not one of those latent "system sellers" who provides NONE of his own up front while finding fault with EVERYONE else's. Or someone blindly applying purely-analytical equations from the popular (soft-cover) "gambling books" w/o consequence. (Shouldn't someone add those traits to the "quack meter" in the thread http://baccaratforums.com/t4236/ ?)

In my more-humble opinion, so far all you've left us with was something about "sequencing" an ASM. How, playing baccarat? Or are you "waiting" for someone else to "feel up to" tackling (or not) that first too? Perhaps Katweezel will allude to it again (so you may again pass up that offer.)

G.

Originally Posted by garnabby

Hence, given the banker/player probabilities of winning listed above by you, namely 0.5068/0.4932 respectively, the house edge on banker bets (versus player bets only) with a 5% commission on wins becomes: (0.05 X 0.5068) - (0.5068 - 0.4932)= 0.02534 - 0.0136 = 0.01174.

The Wizard gives some compelling arguments against using this method in the article you posted. I will add another very important reason – people just don’t play that way. I have often seen players switching bets or removing a bet after a tie. Your numbers do not reflect this style of play. They are also not applicable to many types of matchplay coupons, “fun chips”, any online bonuses or other advantageous promotional bonuses. They might work for your specific system but their use is very limited. My numbers are accurate for any style of play. I have not seen a “multitude” of people quoting your numbers nor have I ever heard of a serious player using them.

Originally Posted by garnabby

Savant, using the "hammers", etc, you already possess in this way leads further into the "trap" i already alluded to in the thread 10 Best Baccarat Gambling Books of All Time .

And your reluctance to learn about them is an example of the bigger trap that I alluded to in that thread.

Originally Posted by garnabby

I would first figure out what i'm dealing with before getting out the appropriate "hammers".

Okay, what “hammers” do you find appropriate? Specifically, how would you adjust the z-score formula above to use with your numbers? And how would you adjust the formulas for expectation, standard deviation, risk of ruin, bet sizing and long run estimation for use with your numbers? Those "hammers" are all directly related to gambling. How are your “hammers” better than the ones professional game analysts have been using for so many years? And why do you encourage people to adjust everything that already exists to suit your opinion? Why reinvent the wheel?

Originally Posted by garnabby

But i see nothing wrong with supplying us with more "fun" calculations. Just please pull something corroborating off the web because it would probably result in a less-sloppy and more-complete result for everyone.

Come on. Now you’re just being argumentative. My explanation of the z-score was clear and concise unlike many of your posts that trail off into long tangents and people reply with confused questions and comments. If you can explain the z-score more clearly then I’d love to hear it, but you had already refused to give an answer to the question when I posted. You have also refused to fix the mistakes in your Gambling Theory thread. My explanations may not be perfect but at least I’m trying to help people.

Originally Posted by garnabby

Perhaps then you would have noticed the Jess article was utimately concerning, "Jess calculated that the Whale was 5 times as likely to lose his bankroll as he was to double it." Note the "to double it" part: per the so-called final agreement of the player to win significantly enough to THEN fairly quit the session ahead. Your type and degree of calculations (so far) don't show THOSE details or results.

My numbers are a general reproduction of Jess’ first calculation:

“First, he calculated that if the Whale could be enticed into playing 5000 hands or so, he would have only about a 15% chance of winning.”

To calculate the odds for the freeze-out challenge you would just need to use a double-barrier ruin calculation. Any good Trip RoR formula can do this. The one described in detail in Blackjack Attack is a good place to start. Or perhaps you could pick up where I left off and explain the calculations to everyone here. It would be nice to see you offering some help instead of just criticizing. I promise I won’t complain that your double-barrier RoR explanation is "sloppy" or "incomplete" as you did to me.

Originally Posted by garnabby

Again, if a machine or its equivalent by way of a "human calculator/juggler" is required to (do-ably) beat any game to hence profit slightly (by requiring those fine calculations), then that is a waste of skills.

I agree, but why do you assume that the profit is only slight in all cases? The more advanced techniques typically lead to much higher profit potential than the simple methods. It all depends on how committed you are to learning them and how talented you are at doing it.

You also assume that profit is the only important element, which it is not. You are ignoring risk, opportunity costs, growth rate and a few other elements that are very important to success. Would you rather get paid 2:1 on a coin flip, 8:1 on rolling a 6 on a fair die or 56:1 on a roulette number? The difference is very significant yet you do not consider it in your argument.

Originally Posted by garnabby

Finally, i hope you're not one of those latent "system sellers" who provides NONE of his own up front while finding fault with EVERYONE else's.

As I said before I am not selling any systems or anything else. I came to this website because people were asking questions about beating casino games. I answered those questions, tried to correct some mistakes, offered some advice to help people become better players and explained some of the math involved in game analysis. You have fought me every step of the way, presumably because I have been pointing out your errors and advising people against the system you are promoting. If you are threatened by my presence or you don’t approve of the information I am giving I will be more than happy to leave this website. I am just trying to share some information with people who I thought were looking for it. If I am mistaken please let me know.

Savant,

In MY OPINION AND THINKING you speak volumes but say nothing. And no, i'm not upset; nor am i interested in playing "ban the poor little guy just trying to help" even were that my decision; but i don't work for you (or anyone else here)... and at the very least, i certainly don't have to prove anything to you. Have you noticed i haven't fought against anyone on this board, and no one has fought against me; but you on the other hand are a different story, right? How many here have complained in one way or another about you or your posts; who complained about mine? I won't react to you, "sorry". Even Ellis was far more worthy of that than you. And why haven't i encountered your username on any of the other boards? Something here interests you. Or is it that that z-score stuff gets you even less "mileage" elsewhere? If as Katweezel wrote, you're only "hinting" at something more, who's misleading whom?

But for the benefit of myself, and anyone still interested in reading the rest of this thread, i will end with a few comments to try to put out some of the remaining "flames". I'll try to not, as Savant put it, "trail off into long tangents and (have other) people reply with confused questions and comments." (As if you're the only one here, Savant, with worthwhile posts and replies. LOL.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

How is providing a free complete system, etc, selling a system? Is that why you used the word 'promote'... only to (sneakily) "try to imply" i am? And because you believe (w/o proof in the private forum) my systems are no better than any other losing system suggests that nothing is being promoted either. We are each allowed to put forth his/her own ideas, etc, right? Which correct ideas (not already posted) have you put forth while "pointing out" everyone else's errors, none of which you actually counter proved? (0.)

I don't know of any bj counters who claim to count because they can make more that way. If that's not required to win, then why not just play the then-winning basic strategy longer having a much much easier time of it? If 2 hours of studying for a test will get 90% of it, why study the harder stuff for 5 hours to get into the top 5%? Spend that time getting 90% of something else. Because the last levels of anything yield the least return. (In bj the basic strategy yields far more, and more easily than even perfect counting, etc, with a calculator; but it won't make anyone a winner.)

Nowhere have i 'ignored' anything. On the contrary, i included everything you speak of in my own system, which apparently you haven't therefore carefully read. Nowhere have i stated that profit, or anything else of that nature is independent of anything else. You continue to "assume" such things only to "set the table" for another of your rambling "displays" of 'commitment and talent', this time something about craps, coin-flips, and roulette. (I write about baccarat first; the latters, etc, second. And of course their can be no profit if lose all. Goes w/o saying unless you just want to ramble.)

Wrt the Jess stuff my critique as 'sloppy and incomplete' put it mildly. (Is "Blackjack Attack" your substitute for a classical mathematics training? Wish i had know that 30 years ago, wouldn't have spent all this time and money at a university.) Now you're trying to further latch onto a vague interpretation of it to further "fudge" over your own errors and oversights already pointed out. If you are right, then how to get approximately the same probabilities for the somewhat different case of as more-fully(?) and finally presented (while applying the same filler?) Sorry for being not well-read on the "Attack" terminologies of 'double-barrier ROR calculation', etc, but what exactly is your point? Why not just acquire the Snyder book in question to see if that better explains anything. (Would be cheaper and a lot easier than all this guessing around stuff, right? Secondly, does it appear to you that anyone else here wants to "help" you along with that? You speak of how most players play, etc, but seem a bit out-of-touch with even that.)

I didn't write/imply that any "hammers" are better than any others. Your choice of words belies the fact that you don't realize that different jobs require different tools. Baccarat requires baccarat tools; and where none yet exists, modified tools from elsewhere. Can't know which SPECIFIC tools w/o knowing which SPECIFIC job. You write, "Why reinvent the wheel?" I'm not trying to re-invent, re-check, or remember anything; nor have i. I know where to find what when and how SHOULD i further require it. On the other hand, if as you say, "The more advanced techniques typically lead to much higher profit potential than the simple methods" perhaps than you would be wanting to try that yourself, right? Wrt z-scores, take that up with the author or his publisher; or just post the work of one whom you prefer. Why does that require my immediate attention? (Come to think of it, i don't work for them either. Anyway, some good input from you might assure some good output from others.) What's that bigger trap to which YOU allude? Surely you would have come right out with that now you want to make more of it? Now it's, as you wrote, "(my) reluctance to learn about them is an example of the bigger trap". I do know the theorems/proofs of/corollaries of, and the calculus to put those together from the ground up; not to mention many techniques for simply approximating those, w/o all the effort but for most of the gain. (But i still prefer to make simple self-evident arguments if at all possible.) And as i already wrote, anyone can and may research those as needed. "Argumentative"? I think not. I do have a right to defend myself though. And your previous post here seems more about attacking and showing up myself than the Jess thing. Otherwise you'd have just set about it after reading things more clearly, and making the necessary checks; and found its shortcomings yourself, instead of rushing to make something you, yourself, admitted was "ball park" try to fit everything. (The adjective which best describes that mind-set is 'procrustean'.)

Finally, wrt the 1.17%, my point was simply that you wrote, "I don’t know where garnabby got 1.17%." It's clear, especially were that the point-of-view type error you're now making it out to be, you didnt previously know that. I get a little leary when someone i don't know more or less tells me i have to do something perfectly in all respects just in and of itself; but when that person fails to see the above, and other basics (already pointed out), i give up.

But to clarify (what clearly wasn't my point, and with a link i provided), either numbers are accurate for any style of play, etc. If you want to use the time-adjusted (tie-included, etc) figures be my guest. Just be sure to time-adjust any and all advantages and playing styles with which you work wrt the P-B bets; one at a time just in case it comes to matter more. (Because inferring that the house has the same edge even on un-bet tie outcomes has to be some sort of a warning.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

To fall back on the arguments, "people just don’t play that way. I have often seen players switching bets or removing a bet after a tie. Your numbers do not reflect this style of play. They are also not applicable to... " is pure bull-garbage used by one-legged pirates headed to "any port in a storm". That's quite a jump, but i can use it because P-B decisions are NOT DEPENDENT on tie decisions... and again, NO real evidence from you to the contrary. (Of course not, there isn't any. Btw, is that the way also YOU play? Why not just come out and say it?) But i agree, "coupons" ARE a due reward for all the "juggling".

Truly sorry Savant, but i have NO more time to waste with you. I hope i haven't wasted enough already. I am a human being with feelings like everyone else but i think i deserve better. But maybe all the friends you imply you've made here will continue to post their support for you. LOL.

Look, I’m not here to get into a pissing contest with anybody. If you want to dominate this website that’s fine with me. If you refuse to answer any of the questions I asked you in this thread, fine. If you don’t want to fix any of the mistakes in your other posts, fine. If you age going to avoid the issues I pointed out about your system, fine. If you aren’t going to discuss the relevant mathematics, fine. If you don’t want me to explain the math to people either, fine. If you are going to blindly criticize the books that I recommend even though you have never heard of them despite the fact that they are widely known in the gambling community, fine. If you aren’t willing to discuss anything specific about your system, fine. If you don’t want to listen to my constructive criticism, fine. We don’t have much left to talk about then.

I just find it strange that someone who claims to understand the math of particle physics and fluid mechanics has never heard of a z-score (Freshman year stats, literally the first course you take) and has to have the Gambler’s Fallacy explained to them (and still doesn’t understand it). Someone who claims to have developed a system but cannot explain how it works and is unwilling to discuss how to use it or how they developed it. Someone who claims to be a serious gambler but doesn’t know the basics of bet sizing or bankroll management and can’t answer an incredibly simple question about a coin toss/roulette spin. Someone who claims to have done a lot of research but has never heard of any of the legitimate books. I don’t know much about you but I know for a fact that you do not have a basic understanding of mathematics (let alone a university degree), you are not a serious card player and your posts are not helpful to the members of this forum. That is all I need to know.

Originally Posted by Savant

Look, I’m not here to get into a pissing contest with anybody. If you want to dominate this website that’s fine with me. If you refuse to answer any of the questions I asked you in this thread, fine. If you don’t want to fix any of the mistakes in your other posts, fine. If you age going to avoid the issues I pointed out about your system, fine. If you aren’t going to discuss the relevant mathematics, fine. If you don’t want me to explain the math to people either, fine. If you are going to blindly criticize the books that I recommend even though you have never heard of them despite the fact that they are widely known in the gambling community, fine. If you aren’t willing to discuss anything specific about your system, fine. If you don’t want to listen to my constructive criticism, fine. We don’t have much left to talk about then.

I just find it strange that someone who claims to understand the math of particle physics and fluid mechanics has never heard of a z-score (Freshman year stats, literally the first course you take) and has to have the Gambler’s Fallacy explained to them (and still doesn’t understand it). Someone who claims to have developed a system but cannot explain how it works and is unwilling to discuss how to use it or how they developed it. Someone who claims to be a serious gambler but doesn’t know the basics of bet sizing or bankroll management and can’t answer an incredibly simple question about a coin toss/roulette spin. Someone who claims to have done a lot of research but has never heard of any of the legitimate books. I don’t know much about you but I know for a fact that you do not have a basic understanding of mathematics (let alone a university degree), you are not a serious card player and your posts are not helpful to the members of this forum. That is all I need to know.

Thanks Savant... for another "highly" informative post. Keep up the "good" work.

P.S. Don't pee into the wind.

Thanks again for not answering any of my questions or addressing any of my issues. Your silence tells the whole story.