Thread: I need help with new theory

I posted a few months ago about which ever side hits the first 6 wins will win the shoe 66% of the time. Well I have been looking at the first win of the shoe. I only have so many real shoe results to test this. So Im going to need help. So far the side that wins the first hand of a shoe wins the shoe 56% of the time. Can some people look at their score cards and tell me what percentage of wins your coming up with? Who knows if this holds up over 1000s of shoes. Thanks

Originally Posted by graylove

I posted a few months ago about which ever side hits the first 6 wins will win the shoe 66% of the time. Well I have been looking at the first win of the shoe. I only have so many real shoe results to test this. So Im going to need help. So far the side that wins the first hand of a shoe wins the shoe 56% of the time. Can some people look at their score cards and tell me what percentage of wins your coming up with? Who knows if this holds up over 1000s of shoes. Thanks

Isn't that what Leonard is doing?

A

Hi,
Can anybody tell me how to read baccarat trend

Originally Posted by John

I'll leave it to g~baby to explain this further.

Can't improve upon the epitomy of ignorance.

Gambler's Glen Message Boards : Baccarat Message Board : Carlo down the johno... .

Gambler's Glen Message Boards : Baccarat Message Board : I stand corrected...

Gambler's Glen Message Boards : Baccarat Message Board : Mission Accomplished

Originally Posted by John

As g~baby is unable to answer this, I shall.

Some such as Ellis will state the occurrence of 2's versus everything else. Which isn't much use, as what has preceded has no influence on what comes next. It’s of little use closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. The same applies to which side wins the first hand, which side is the first to win six hands. But hey if there are folk who have time on their hands……….

How to trend a shoe. Disclaimer the current trend has no bearing on what will happen next or what is about to come.

Recording a shoe vertically, you have the top line or 1st line (populated by single decisions (BPBP), the 2nd line populated by all doubles and on it goes, the 3rd line, 4th and beyond etc. A prime example of a rare event, would be to see the 7th line populated back to back, or the 5th line populated 4 times back to back.

Shoe are classed as predominantly choppy if hardly anything is hitting the 3rd line. But the best way to gauge things would be to notice the hole gap of the 2nd line, if the 2nd line hole gap is consistently 3 or more, then you will be having a tough time of things if say for example you were playing FTL.

It should be self explanatory when shoes are streaky, usually streaks have a few chops in-between, hitting the 4th line and beyond a few times. If the 2nd line is always being populated it is a good sign for FTL, however it is a guide relating to the past, you may have missed a good opportunity. Hence the approach of sometimes playing for the future (hoping the opposite doesn't happen, or being able to handle it when it does). This should explain why the most important aspect of Baccarat is the monetary angle. You can't do anything about decisions, only you decides when to bet and how much.

As you can see, it is of little value playing for something after the event.

In other words Trending; “noticing something and then hoping it holds up”, and then maybe waiting for the next event. The alternative approach is to play for something and hope the opposite doesn't happen, maybe switch when it does, try and avoid getting caught in the switch. I would suggest there is a sutle difference between playing and hoping something doesn't happen, I'll leave it to g~baby to explain this further.

However most of all and it is often repeated by experienced players and not by internet trolls, manipulation of betting amounts, be it negative or positive. Never lose sight that no matter what the next outcome remains a 50/50 bet.

Touche

John and Sevenshooter,
I agree with you that the past outcomes do not predict the future.
Nontheless, I use trend following. My approach is to catch a trend as it evolves. My basic premise is that there is a bias in many shoes. I don't want to have to predict it , just catch it as it happens.

If you don't believe in biasis , what ever the source, then this is all a big waste of time. If you do believe that bias exists, the trend/streaks etc will be there.

Originally Posted by Profbac

John and Sevenshooter,
I agree with you that the past outcomes do not predict the future.
Nontheless, I use trend following. My approach is to catch a trend as it evolves. My basic premise is that there is a bias in many shoes. I don't want to have to predict it , just catch it as it happens.

If you don't believe in biasis , what ever the source, then this is all a big waste of time. If you do believe that bias exists, the trend/streaks etc will be there.

Well said Profbac!

If you believe all is random and shoe history is useless, you are, in fact, wasting your time because random numbers can't be beat.

But a random believer can't talk in terms of "predominantly streaky" or "predominantly choppy". That's contradictory.

Any player who has never seen a streaky table or a choppy table simply has't played long enough. And that is just one of many trends.

But the bottom line is this: If you ignore trends (biases) You have no way to win. Sure, you'll win some shoes but that isn't the objective. The object is to win overall. There is only one way to do that. Random believers have NO way.

Originally Posted by Ellis

Well said Profbac!

If you believe all is random and shoe history is useless, you are, in fact, wasting your time because random numbers can't be beat.

But a random believer can't talk in terms of "predominantly streaky" or "predominantly choppy". That's contradictory.

Any player who has never seen a streaky table or a choppy table simply has't played long enough. And that is just one of many trends.

But the bottom line is this: If you ignore trends (biases) You have no way to win. Sure, you'll win some shoes but that isn't the objective. The object is to win overall. There is only one way to do that. Random believers have NO way.

I like these posts that go to the heart of the matter! Words are important. The context of which I use "bias" does mean not mathematically random. If you want to use the word "bias" as meaning "un-average" or some other definition that is fine with me. But we do need to decide what we are talking about!

Just because a shoe is "predominantly streaky" does not, in my mind, mean that it is not a random event. It is not a contradiction Ellis. (Ellis bashing omitted here - happy now Georiga, lol). A random event simply means that you cannot know the future based on the past - no cause and effect!

Ellis, I believe, is making the case that shoes are not random and there IS a cause and effect AND that cause and effect CAN be exploited. This is an obvious contradiction in terms but let's forget that for now. Let's assume that there IS a relationship between past events and future events BECAUSE THAT IS HOW PATTERN PLAYERS ARE TRYING TO WIN LONG TERM.

If there is such a relationship then we must be able to find it and quantify it (qualify it? - something like that -sorry, I don't have a 160 IQ - oops! - sorry Georgia!).

How hard can this be? Ellis has in fact stated on this forum that you can win by 1) matching a bet mode to the shoe you are playing and 2) wait for a shoe to show a certain pattern and then play the next same shoe to repeat using the past performance to define your bet mode.

If this is true we should be able to establish a fixed way of playing dependent on past performance. Yes? No?

Archer

Right Archer. In our search for the truth of it all, and on top of all other difficulties, all discussion is hampered by semantics. Different terms mean different things to different people.

I agree with you that a random shoe can end up favoring streak. We like to have corroborating evidence like:
The whole casino is streaky
The last three red shoes were streaky
The table is streaky
The shoe/table is streaky outside of the random envelope
This card prep usually produces streaky shoes
This pit is always streaky after 8 PM on a Saturday night

Also hampering us is the fact that many shoes simply don't have a reliable bias. This is why I say FIRST always look for the strongest bias in the casino or perhaps several casinos. I also say if there is no discernable bias, don't play.

But pitifully few players recognize playable biases other than Chop/Streak.

For instance, I consider it a very playable bias when Player and Bank are running neck and neck (low P/B disparity). I said just yesterday on my own forum that this is usually the first (trend) I look for because it is so easy to spot and so easy to beat. But again, pitifully few players would have any idea how to beat this extremely common shoe type.

And that is just one trend of many. Most everyone would define that as random BTW. Yeah, maybe so, but its still highly beatable.

The shoe given me to demonstrate this yesterday had a highest column (20 plays) disparity of 7 vs 13. The shoe scored 33 with a high bet of 5, a low position of -2, a Player Advantage of 36% and an ABS far less than 2. Pitifully few players would have any idea how to do that.

What becomes very relevant to any system developer seeking to exploit a bias or trend is a)how are we defining that trend and b) how long does the trend need to last to be recognized and be exploited.

Archer, what do you call pattern recognition?How many hands would a pattern recognition player be looking at.

Personally, I am looking back two hands for example, the TB4L or OTB4L,
and I go back as far as five hands using a three out of five method, depending on the strength of the bias I am expecting. Of course there is
more going on here than just trend following, but I am sharing the ideas for those who are exploring approaches to the game.

Profbac, are you not using the tote boards? While we had an era of tote board inaccuracy they are quite accurate at most casinos today and substantially reliable.

Ellis,

My method is card counting based. The tote board is not useful to me.

Originally Posted by Ellis

Profbac, are you not using the tote boards? While we had an era of tote board inaccuracy they are quite accurate at most casinos today and substantially reliable.

"an era of toteboard inaccuracy" The hits keep on coming! Aha! Uncle Ellis found out that the reason so many of his players were losing because of that ERA that lasted. . . well, as long as an "era" usually lasts - like 500 years! LOL. But now, Ellis has determined from his rocking chair in Northern Arkansas that the problem is now fixed!

Frankly, I wouldn't trust a totebaord in Tunica! Those dealers constantly screw it up. Most pay no attention plus if you just join a table you have no idea of the accuracy. Whatever.

A

Originally Posted by Profbac

What becomes very relevant to any system developer seeking to exploit a bias or trend is a)how are we defining that trend and b) how long does the trend need to last to be recognized and be exploited.

Archer, what do you call pattern recognition?How many hands would a pattern recognition player be looking at.

Personally, I am looking back two hands for example, the TB4L or OTB4L,
and I go back as far as five hands using a three out of five method, depending on the strength of the bias I am expecting. Of course there is
more going on here than just trend following, but I am sharing the ideas for those who are exploring approaches to the game.

Since pattern recognition is essentially just a guess it really doesn't matter much how many hands you look back. But I think it is not necessarily the number of hands but what happens in those previous hands and when you enter a shoe.

So for instance with toteboards one can look back a lot of hands and use whatever is on the board. If, for instance, you see 20 previious hands and they are all 1's, 2's, and a few 3's you might jump into Ellis' net betting thing and hope it continues. OTH, if you see a dearth of 1's just play FLD.

If one is starting a shoe then waiting for what ocurrs is more important than the number of hands don't you think? Perhaps it is better to wait for a number of runs to end.

If Ellis is correct that past patterns portend future patterns more often then this will be an easy game to beat. All you need is a couple of bet placements. You don't need a million different BTC methods. Plug in MM and progressions to taste and risk level.

A