Thread: Holy Grail: Fact or Fantasy?

From the moment I joined this Forum I've heard many opinions about a "Holy Grail". Some say it's there, just not found yet. Others swear there is no such thing. For those who believe, it begs the question: "How would one know if he/she "found" the HG?" I've never heard anyone claim to know what constitutes a HG. If nobody ever sets paramaters, how could one know? How would a MM fit the equation? If "Joe" has 100 winning sessions without a loss, would it qualify if he uses a Marty to the max? Or, would the purists insist on a Flat Bet situation only? Appreciate any thoughts/comments. T101

Originally Posted by Therapy101

From the moment I joined this Forum I've heard many opinions about a "Holy Grail". Some say it's there, just not found yet. Others swear there is no such thing. For those who believe, it begs the question: "How would one know if he/she "found" the HG?" I've never heard anyone claim to know what constitutes a HG. If nobody ever sets paramaters, how could one know? How would a MM fit the equation? If "Joe" has 100 winning sessions without a loss, would it qualify if he uses a Marty to the max? Or, would the purists insist on a Flat Bet situation only? Appreciate any thoughts/comments. T101

if you win a lot you think you have hg but you are just lucky
the odds are quite clear there can be no hg
people lie
math doesnt lie

Originally Posted by Starbuck

people lie
math doesnt lie

This sums it up pretty well- people also like to think that what they are doing is somehow different or unique, or even clever- but usually they're just old ideas attempted to be made new. Works well in the arts at times, but here, alas, the math does not care.

Having said that, I could only think of an HG simply as one thing- any method that mechanically, over time, wins more hands that it loses, theoretically grinding to a profit of infinity given enough time (like Banker will). Could be 1 unit a shoe on average, or 10. Still would be a winner over the long, long stretch.

Everything else is just another system, perhaps only useful to a 'skillful' gambler who can somehow intuitively sense when one method/style will work better than another, adapting when he/she feels needed.

The reason so many are looking for an HG is because almost no one wants to even risk seeing if they can pull off the latter- and usually, when they do, end up losing big.

Originally Posted by Therapy101

From the moment I joined this Forum I've heard many opinions about a "Holy Grail". Some say it's there, just not found yet. Others swear there is no such thing. For those who believe, it begs the question: "How would one know if he/she "found" the HG?" I've never heard anyone claim to know what constitutes a HG. If nobody ever sets paramaters, how could one know? How would a MM fit the equation? If "Joe" has 100 winning sessions without a loss, would it qualify if he uses a Marty to the max? Or, would the purists insist on a Flat Bet situation only? Appreciate any thoughts/comments. T101

I'm working on it.

I think the key would be to utilize streaks and chops together with a MM.

I don't think the answer is with single outcomes.

Pairs, Triples or Quads seem to be the best approach. They normalize the variations.

I can't really offer much more at this time as I haven't "the" answer my good friend!

Hey Scotty, I couldn't agree with you more. Funny, I had just logged on to post that very same thought. (Coincidence?) I also don't believe a successful system will depend on the number of B's/P's in a given shoe, but rather in the makeup of the shoe. A system that will work must win a shoe whether streaky or choppy. (Baccarat 101) This would necessitate incorporating two, or perhaps three systems into one, to achieve the win. I am also convinced the MM must be Flat Betting to be successful. Frankly, I love the Grand Martingale, but it always turns on me. Even a modest loss when progressing will at some point become unruly no matter the method. I also do not believe "intuitive" thinking can possibly work. My apologies to mattman. A solid mechanical method (if "mechanical method" means a wager is initiated from a trigger), is the answer. When the play becomes subjective, in my opinion, it becomes little more than a guessing game. Because it is a random game, (another contested point), the outcome cannot be predicted. Any play suggesting a different outcome of the next four decisions because the last four were BBBB or PPPP is futile. There have been times I would swear there is no possible way to beat the game. Then there are other times. T101

The only people who use the term "holy grail" are systems sellers and losers looking for some miracle that will return regular profits with a small bankroll and no drawdaowns.

We can't win more bets than we lose, so we need to make more cake on our winning bets than we lose on our losing bets, so that requires a progression, and the balls and bankroll to play it and survive inevitable drawdowns. It ain't rocket science, hey hey.

Originally Posted by soxfan

The only people who use the term "holy grail" are systems sellers and losers looking for some miracle that will return regular profits with a small bankroll and no drawdaowns.

We can't win more bets than we lose, so we need to make more cake on our winning bets than we lose on our losing bets, so that requires a progression, and the balls and bankroll to play it and survive inevitable drawdowns. It ain't rocket science, hey hey.

progression check
balls check
bankroll check
drawdowns check

rocket science uncheck

and the rest is luck

Originally Posted by Starbuck

if you win a lot you think you have hg but you are just lucky
the odds are quite clear there can be no hg
people lie
math doesnt lie

not Lie but change
mat cannot change cause got no feeling ,static

Say A and then A That is call Fact
say Bank Result can be B or P that is call fantasy

Originally Posted by fauzy

not Lie but change
mat cannot change cause got no feeling ,static

Say A and then A That is call Fact
say Bank Result can be B or P that is call fantasy

and remember gup can call pug a lug and he would be a smug rug
as well as a plus b is equal to c minus d
remember to carry the division e because you can always find ring ling gong to help you win the song

If I test a method and it beats Zumma 1600 shoes, I then pass it along to my friend David. If he can beat 100 000 RNG shoes with no coding or logic error, and then later tests it against millions of shoes and still gets a positive result, then that is the holy grail. Naturally we have not been able to do this yet, but one time we *thought we had a winner. It beat 10 million RNG shoes, but was a programming error. That day really sucked.

Originally Posted by LuckoftheIrish

If I test a method and it beats Zumma 1600 shoes, I then pass it along to my friend David. If he can beat 100 000 RNG shoes with no coding or logic error, and then later tests it against millions of shoes and still gets a positive result, then that is the holy grail. Naturally we have not been able to do this yet, but one time we *thought we had a winner. It beat 10 million RNG shoes, but was a programming error. That day really sucked.

I have experienced several times when I thought I had the monkey by the balls only to discover I was the monkey for making an error in calculation. It happens to us all sooner or later and sometimes multiple times. Accurate record keeping and recording is essential to cut down on errors. Thanks for the input. T101

Originally Posted by Therapy101

From the moment I joined this Forum I've heard many opinions about a "Holy Grail". Some say it's there, just not found yet. Others swear there is no such thing. For those who believe, it begs the question: "How would one know if he/she "found" the HG?" I've never heard anyone claim to know what constitutes a HG. If nobody ever sets paramaters, how could one know? How would a MM fit the equation? If "Joe" has 100 winning sessions without a loss, would it qualify if he uses a Marty to the max? Or, would the purists insist on a Flat Bet situation only? Appreciate any thoughts/comments. T101

Hi Therapy101, it's good to hear from you again.

The "Holy Grail" means a system or method that can win every hand or every shoe to you?

If, not then there is one out there.

Think of short-term, instead of long-term.

Eventually, short-terms will become a long-term.

Anyhow, I would skip the "martingale" part.

[QUOTE=LuckoftheIrish;36544]If I test a method and it beats Zumma 1600 shoes, I then pass it along to my friend David. If he can beat 100 000 RNG shoes with no coding or logic error, and then later tests it against millions of shoes and still gets a positive result, then that is the holy grail. Naturally we have not been able to do this yet, but one time we *thought we had a winner. It beat 10 million RNG shoes, but was a programming error. That day really sucked.

Hey Luck, yeah that would be a bummer. This system checker your friend David has, what specifically does the resulting data look like? I'm sure he would be able to program it to give results by the shoe no? Can you give me an example (other than the programming error) of some tests that have failed. Were the methods flat betting/progression? 100,000 shoes is a huge number.

We know that any system will work for certain shoes but bomb on

others. How do you reconcile the variance with that number of shoes. Just playing ten shoes at a session is a huge investment in time. So, what if the system works for the ten shoes then goes south when you quit the session?

Suppose ten shoes of the 100,000 lost forty units each, but the rest of

the shoes showed a three unit average win? What I'm trying to

determine is: what constitutes a losing method? Each system being

different, just trying to understand what criteria is used to determine a

system failure. Thanks T101

[quote=Therapy101;36565]

Originally Posted by LuckoftheIrish

If I test a method and it beats Zumma 1600 shoes, I then pass it along to my friend David. If he can beat 100 000 RNG shoes with no coding or logic error, and then later tests it against millions of shoes and still gets a positive result, then that is the holy grail. Naturally we have not been able to do this yet, but one time we *thought we had a winner. It beat 10 million RNG shoes, but was a programming error. That day really sucked.

Hey Luck, yeah that would be a bummer. This system checker your friend David has, what specifically does the resulting data look like? I'm sure he would be able to program it to give results by the shoe no? Can you give me an example (other than the programming error) of some tests that have failed. Were the methods flat betting/progression? 100,000 shoes is a huge number.

We know that any system will work for certain shoes but bomb on

others. How do you reconcile the variance with that number of shoes. Just playing ten shoes at a session is a huge investment in time. So, what if the system works for the ten shoes then goes south when you quit the session?

Suppose ten shoes of the 100,000 lost forty units each, but the rest of

the shoes showed a three unit average win? What I'm trying to

determine is: what constitutes a losing method? Each system being

different, just trying to understand what criteria is used to determine a

system failure. Thanks T101

Well the system that we thought was a winner, it too complex to explain here, but it had to do with taking bet selections and assigning + or - to grids and then testing all the different outcomes such as:

+++
+++
++-

to

---
---
--+

etc. Basically we wanted to see if betting a certain way would give better results than betting other ways.

The:

+++
+++
+++

pattern is the one I believe we thought was a winning one, but it turned out to be a programming error.

In David's simulations, very often the systems tanks near the very beginning and never comes back into profit. To me, a holy grail system will eventually be positive, even if it takes 5,10 or 20 shoes. No method in the world will win every shoe out of say a million shoes tested.

If a method is positive after hundreds of thousands of shoes, then I would say it is the holy grail. Of course the betting has to be within table limits for obvious reasons. And the smaller the progression the better.

I have beaten around 14 000 RNG shoes and Zumma using MM techniques for betting on banker, but they eventually fail. Maybe I should have looked harder in that area.

[quote=LuckoftheIrish;36568]

Originally Posted by Therapy101

I have beaten around 14 000 RNG shoes and Zumma using MM techniques for betting on banker, but they eventually fail. Maybe I should have looked harder in that area.

Maybe consider "retracements."

How far does "P" go when overtaking "B" and then retracing to graph the normal slope upwards of "B" winning more than "P"

Just a thought I worked-on for a while but that really needs technical analysis graphing to test quickly and accurately.

Originally Posted by punvit

Hi Therapy101, it's good to hear from you again.

The "Holy Grail" means a system or method that can win every hand or every shoe to you?

If, not then there is one out there.

Think of short-term, instead of long-term.

Eventually, short-terms will become a long-term.

Anyhow, I would skip the "martingale" part.

I'm very interested in you play.

Originally Posted by Ihatewashingtonstate

I'm very interested in you play.

I just replied your PM.

aint no holy grails to piss in folks, end of story. anyone saying they can be some kind of bac god is just a lyin basturd with a cunt of a mouth living a fantasy world in some tooty frooty land.

Originally Posted by Skull

aint no holy grails to piss in folks, end of story. anyone saying they can be some kind of bac god is just a lyin basturd with a cunt of a mouth living a fantasy world in some tooty frooty land.

Ahhh, yes, the totally classless act, Skull, endeavors to enlighten our group once more! LOL - Mike, can you make this post a sticky? Or maybe there should be another category just for posts like these? Hey, hey. LOL

Originally Posted by soxfan

We can't win more bets than we lose, so we need to make more cake on our winning bets than we lose on our losing bets, so that requires a progression, and the balls and bankroll to play it and survive inevitable drawdowns. It ain't rocket science, hey hey.

The bank wins more often than it loses (treating ties as a non-trial for these purposes). So we can actually win more bets than we lose quite easily.

Originally Posted by GBV

The bank wins more often than it loses (treating ties as a non-trial for these purposes). So we can actually win more bets than we lose quite easily.

Do you mean Bank win in a shoe,?30P-35B?over Player

Originally Posted by GBV

The bank wins more often than it loses (treating ties as a non-trial for these purposes). So we can actually win more bets than we lose quite easily.

By betting on banker only?

Originally Posted by punvit

By betting on banker only?

punvit i thought we already went over this many many times
why are you so fixated on fighting the obvious math
it is not rocket science as a famous man once said

Originally Posted by Starbuck

punvit i thought we already went over this many many times
why are you so fixated on fighting the obvious math
it is not rocket science as a famous man once said

I did not ask you, did I?

Originally Posted by punvit

By betting on banker only?

Yes. The banker has a small advantage over player due to its slightly more sophisticated drawing/standing rules.

This is not the basis of a winning system obviously. You win less money when bank wins (0.95:1) than when the player wins.

Originally Posted by punvit

I did not ask you, did I?

if you are such a pro at bac why are you wasting your time and life here anyway
you should be at the tables making tons of money and yet here you are arguing against one of the most fundamental facts about the game

This is not the basis of a winning system obviously.

Thank you for your replied, GBV.

Originally Posted by GBV

Yes. The banker has a small advantage over player due to its slightly more sophisticated drawing/standing rules.

This is not the basis of a winning system obviously. You win less money when bank wins (0.95:1) than when the player wins.

gbv a word of advice dont waste your time on this with punvit because he already knows it and he must get his jollies from picking fights about this because he does it every time the basic banker statistics comes up night after night after night

Originally Posted by Starbuck

if you are such a pro at bac why are you wasting your time and life here anyway
you should be at the tables making tons of money and yet here you are arguing against one of the most fundamental facts about the game

Starbuck, I've never said I am a "pro".

The reason I'm still around is because I do have free time and still enjoy all kind of discussions in this forum.

Actually, I'll be on my way to a casino in 15 mins., as usual.

Originally Posted by punvit

Starbuck, I've never said I am a "pro".

The reason I'm still around is because I do have free time and still enjoy all kind of discussions in this forum.

Actually, I'll be on my way to a casino in 15 mins., as usual.

good luck tonight i hope you win lots
its just it would be nice if you actually offered some helpful discussion on bettering our play rather than rehash the same old basic questions about things everyone knows about over and over again
i hope you see what i mean
anyway best of luck to you at the tables