!Need some advice from the Pros & ex players

[Martingaler]

you have read it and you share with us. we all members can discuss ,why and how

fauzy, will you go Genting tomorrow. 7/27 ?

[Egalite]

Not really! They are his stats!

Yeah I know. saw those years ago, but have never been able to re-find them on his web site, so thanks for posting them here.

I assume these figures don't account for the 5% banker tax, as they apply to any EC game.

[fauzy]

fauzy, will you go Genting tomorrow. 7/27 ?

Mar Thank you ,I play Illegal local casino.I just have small bankroll .

[fauzy]

Yeah I know. saw those years ago, but have never been able to re-find them on his web site, so thanks for posting them here.

I assume these figures don't account for the 5% banker tax, as they apply to any EC game.

Egalite
Do owners of casino find the gambling edge.

[Laugh]

Egalite Do owners of casino find the gambling edge.

Of course Fauzy, every game including the slut machines (especially) has a house edge, In America we call those machines the one armed bandit because it sticks you up and robs you of your money. The owners wouldn't dare open a Casino and put out games they knew they didn't have an edge and make good profit in. Now, some claim to have an edge at Blackjack (counters). Even if so, it's probably 1% that can make a profit before they can't fly under the radar no more and get banned.

[chopper999]

I've been playin bac fulltime for over four years now, and the transition from recreational player to pro is difficult and not to be undertaken lightly. You have receivd some good advices, here. I would add, keep your job, and play serious part time bac until you can see what kind of consistent profit per shoe yer pullin down. This way you can build a roll and gain confidence while keeping your job, for the being time.

Also, I would advise you to read "Fulltime Gambler" by Louis Holloway and Power Baccarat 2 by Byron Hebert. Both authors give very real portrayal of what is required and what to expect when you make bac yer livelihood, hey hey.

Hey here is the link for POWER BACCARAT 2 - I am on my forth read of the book following all his suggestions and advice -

Cheers Chopper.

Baccarat - Books - Hebert, Byron - POWER BACCARAT II

[fauzy]

fauzy, the kelly betting formula is simply betting a fixed proprtion of your bankroll depending on the advantage you hold.

Let me give you a simple example using the game of blackjack as an example.

You have a true count of +3 and your bankroll is $3000. You would bet 3% of your bankroll = $90.
If your bankroll was $5000. You would bet $150. You are betting more money as your bankroll increases and less as it decreases. The theory behind it is that you should avoid the risk of ruin. It is a very good way to accelerate your winning potential. A few people claim the full kelly bet is volatile and suggest using a half kelly which means you just bet half your edge. Using the example above. You have a true count of +3 and your bankroll is $3000. A half kelly would require you to bet $45. The half kelly will perform at 75% of the full kelly but reduce the volatility.


Read the book for a more detailed explanation and broader insight. What I have tried to point out in my posts on this thread is that you can become a successful player and earn a good living from any game as long as you have an edge and adopt some sensible MM plan.
There are plenty of games out there other than baccarat. If you can't find an edge at bac, consider learning another game. I spent 5-10 years looking for advantages in many different games of chance. There is no strategy that you can apply to all games and come out a winner. Every game has a lot of subtle differences which you need to carefully tailor any advantage towards. It takes a lot of thought and experimenting.

Added info. I know 2 guys who are/were professional blackjack players.
One of them used the full kelly bet and won over 250k over a 2 year period before he got banned from every casino in my country.
The other one flat bets and grinds out his profits. He is still playing. My opinion is the first guy was smarter. The casino still knows the 2nd guy is a counter and tolerate him for now. Nothing is to say they could ban him anytime because of the current recession and he would not have won anything like 250k. The 1st guy can get on with the rest of his life knowing he has screwed over the gambling industry. It is not just all about finding an edge. How are you going to use it to maximum effect once you have it at your disposal.

Kid thank you .
I agree for the 1% ,2% of Bankroll.but if I find good an edge I will Post to all members.

[Laugh]

Kid thank you .I agree for the 1% ,2% of Bankroll.but if I find good an edge I will Post to all members.

Good luck on finding your "edge". You've joined since last year and probably played much longer. And a thousand posts and questions later...you have...not found it. I would tell you a great story but I figured there's too many story tellers here also. LOTI has several hundred systems and he put them through their exhaustive tests and what have we concluded? All a long term failure. Your best chance would probably be a modified STAR MM(don't ask me, I won't give it out). You might rack your brain on that one. Two wins in a row that's it? Two wins in a row, Mr. Laugh? You will say. And I will say it's not as easy as it sounds. This MM requires some guts and good bet placement strategy with a high bankroll. Then there are these AP guys out there, hmmm looks tempting. I'm laughing and so is Baccarat and so have some posters that are in the "know" of how forums go. It's one big circus and I'm watching it play it out.

[Egalite]

Your best chance would probably be a modified STAR MM(don't ask me, I won't give it out).

But others already have, both here and on the GG site. A sharp mind sometimes can turn an innocent remark / idea / suggestion, into something worth playing. One of those per year makes it worthwhile, I've picked up a few remarks from the GG site over the years and made money from them, one of the reasons for visiting this site, so far this year pickings have been sparse and non-existent, thankfully you have yourself to fall back on.

As for this "edge" malarkey, AS4 when tested in bulk (10000 decisions or more) will usually come in greater than 52%, so there is a 2% edge, right there. As for flat betting yourself to a million bucks, I don't know, never tried it, never considered it, I've always deployed a negative progression.

[mattman]

As for this "edge" malarkey, AS4 when tested in bulk (10000 decisions or more) will usually come in greater than 52%, so there is a 2% edge, right there

I don't know about that- can anyone else confirm this? Haven't tested AS4 for what seems like ages, and forgot the results, which means it must have failed given enough time like everything else.

[LOTI]

I don't know about that- can anyone else confirm this? Haven't tested AS4 for what seems like ages, and forgot the results, which means it must have failed given enough time like everything else.

What is AS4?

[Egalite]

I don't know about that- can anyone else confirm this? Haven't tested AS4 for what seems like ages, and forgot the results, which means it must have failed given enough time like everything else.

When I tested this a few years back with a jump single win option after 3L, I got 54.3% against my own verified 91 x 8-deck shoes, with a no-jump option and 3L stop I got 53%. Betting "B only" using a template option against the same set of shoes I hit 53%. Simply betting BBP wrapped in a 3COL template (stopping after a single win) gave me a 51.7% strike rate, as did AS3-3LS & AS3-3LJSW (strange that jump and no jump option came in at the same figure, which signifies don't get hung up on bet selection). 4COL-B only 51.4%, even 7COL-DblZz = 51.8%, 5COL-Min = 52.5%, a variation of 6COL-MajSW4LS = 51.3%~52.8%, 6COL-UnBal (just for Fauzy) = 51.7%, variations of 6COL-UnBal (passed and tested to a few GG members at the time) 51.9%~52.9%. Just found another couple AS3-3LJ-Stay = 53.8%, AS5 =50.8%

Of course my data ain't the Zumma data, my data means nothing when you actually sit down to play any of the above. Regarding my data and entire table history, I will never see an exact copy of any shoe previously played, so what does it all mean? Probably nothing and bulk testing is of limited value, it proves nothing. However my own testing against 10k results, I have managed to produce 12 different options, which if you believe those stats above, I should have flat bet myself to a few million by now. I rarely bother testing any more, it's all a waste of time, all you need is a feel of what your up against, I do my testing at the tables, if it tanks, do something else. Each hand is 50/50 so you can test until you're old, grey & wrinkled, ain't gonna make any difference, it's still 50/50 despite your months of testing, simply focus on how much your laying out, that is all that matters.

[mattman]

Each hand is 50/50 so you can test until you're old, grey & wrinkled, ain't gonna make any difference, it's still 50/50 despite your months of testing, simply focus on how much your laying out, that is all that matters.

Ernest Hemingway once wrote, "The world is a fine place, and every bet in even chance games is 50/50. I agree with the second part."

Yeah, see, your stats to me prove why a player like Bryan, though very rare, will have to exist every once in a while- even betting flat with the approach you mention above, you could have walked away with quite a few units. However, because hindsight's a bitch, we never really know this until we look back, making the method like you say, pretty much useless because it will fail in the long run, and we never really know at what point it will 'work' best when we are at the tables. Although a guy like Ellis will tell you he knows the answer to a question like that, as long as you hand over some change monthly.

What you wrote here is important, IMO, in the sense of understanding why Bryan's triggers won't mean a damn for 99% of the players out there in the long run, or any other bet placements/triggers. And it also shows why AS4 ain't really a 52% hit rate, or better than any other.

[gr8player]

Wow....you guys know that I don't chime in very often into threads that aren't my own, but I feel compelled to add to this discussion:

......you guys are SO CLOSE yet SO FAR......

You almost have it, and then, ppfffft, you don't.

Egalite: >.....simply focus on how much you're laying out, that is all that matters.<

Nope. It's NOT all about MM, you'd be best served to learn that as quickly as possible. It only becomes all about MM when winning each session becomes essential for you, because your MM is too steep to keep under control. You'd best learn how to lose, graciously, and THEN utilize a session progression, but only when you learn your.......

VARIANCE.

Look, every one of those bet selections you speak of just above, with their better than 50% strike rates, are GOLD, absolute GOLD, because they should (only you would know, I haven't tested them) carry VERY TIGHT VARIANCES. And, my friends, tight variances are the very KEY to beating this game over the long term.

Haven't you guys ever heard of the Random Walk theory? Well, variance works in kind. Now, IF one could find a bet selection(s) that don't "walk too far"/"vary from their median" (read: "variance"), couldn't one exploit those statistics. Sure they could.

But, my friends, know this: It don't come easy. You've got to measure not just the strike rates, as Egalite posted above, but their variance. How "low can they go"? First, measure them separately, and then measue them together. So, say you wanted to play for AS3 and AS4, and you know that they carry a positive (better than 50%) strike rate when utilized AFTER a "certain trigger"; maybe, MAYBE, one of those would be "lagging", or straying a bit further than normal from it's average variance, BUUUUTT, what are the true odds of them BOTH LAGGING at the same time????!!!!!

One pays for the other. (And that's just in the more difficult sessions....much of the time you'll be doing just fine with the both of them.) AND, the "one paying for the other" is ONLY HALF the good news:

You see, the bet selection that was lagging in the last session should "come around" sooner rather than later, so that your strike rate on the laggard should be even higher than the average because it was so much lower in the last session.

But, you guys are right, it don't count for a hill of beans on the next bet you make, regardless how high the calculated strike rate is. That you guys are right about, for it will always be a 50/50 prop.

But, fellas, it's time for you to step out of the Dark Ages. Get past it already.....

Play a consistent, proven Bet Selection and use it's variance to your advantage. View this more as long-term game rather than how can I win my next bet and/or shoe.

Step into the light, already......it's about time! After all, you're SO CLOSE and yet SO FAR.

[mattman]

Wow....you guys know that I don't chime in very often into threads that aren't my own, but I feel compelled to add to this discussion:

......you guys are SO CLOSE yet SO FAR......

You almost have it, and then, ppfffft, you don't.

Egalite: >.....simply focus on how much you're laying out, that is all that matters.<

Nope. It's NOT all about MM, you'd be best served to learn that as quickly as possible. It only becomes all about MM when winning each session becomes essential for you, because your MM is too steep to keep under control. You'd best learn how to lose, graciously, and THEN utilize a session progression, but only when you learn your.......

VARIANCE.

Look, every one of those bet selections you speak of just above, with their better than 50% strike rates, are GOLD, absolute GOLD, because they should (only you would know, I haven't tested them) carry VERY TIGHT VARIANCES. And, my friends, tight variances are the very KEY to beating this game over the long term.

Haven't you guys ever heard of the Random Walk theory? Well, variance works in kind. Now, IF one could find a bet selection(s) that don't "walk too far"/"vary from their median" (read: "variance"), couldn't one exploit those statistics. Sure they could.

Wow, where to begin:

B/S is meaningless in a game, like you conceded, where everything is 50/50. No one has ever been able to mathematically prove or create a 'system' that can capitalize on variance enough to push beyond the 50/50 mark- what you're talking about, is not really so much variance that is specific to any B/S, but rather variance that is equal in ALL B/S's given they utilize the same MM (whatever it may be) given x number of hands on average over x number decisions.

There is a term for what you are speaking of, when you mention that when a B/S is following behind, eventually it has to catch up-- it's called reversion to the mean. Problem is, just because you know at some point, the B/S will catch up, doesn't really help us much, because it can catch up at times in the near future, or times much farther down- this is why so many guys get wiped out-- they keep betting that their failing B/S is going to catch up- problem is, usually they apply it only to the near future, and end up going broke; the dirty secret to this this, though, is that you could work on long-term reversion methods, and they will come out negative as well-- only it took more time to get there, but when it did, it hit even harder. Just because you have know at some point a B/S has to 'catch up', doesn't mean you can really capitalize on this- the insidiousness of the game is creating the illusion that you have the ability to, and the whole thing ends up going to hell because of basically being a sub-set of gambler's fallacy, betting that it's just gotta catch up, only it often doesn't in time.

You mean well with what you write here, but I don't think Egalite or I are really missing anything-- his (and others) live data show that even the most conservative of MM's, the flat bet, can actually succeed for a decent amount of time before the math catches up. Some players are fortunate enough to be on the very small, but present minority of being just lucky, just long enough to step away with a nice profit out of the game. They dodged enough bullets. If they are smart, they leave when they are well ahead (read: meeting a goal, and then staying the f*** out). Most aren't, though, let human nature kick in, and keep playing, losing it all, and then some.

Nature of the beast when sticking around a negative expectation game.

[fauzy]

When I tested this a few years back with a jump single win option after 3L, I got 54.3% against my own verified 91 x 8-deck shoes, with a no-jump option and 3L stop I got 53%. Betting "B only" using a template option against the same set of shoes I hit 53%. Simply betting BBP wrapped in a 3COL template (stopping after a single win) gave me a 51.7% strike rate, as did AS3-3LS & AS3-3LJSW (strange that jump and no jump option came in at the same figure, which signifies don't get hung up on bet selection). 4COL-B only 51.4%, even 7COL-DblZz = 51.8%, 5COL-Min = 52.5%, a variation of 6COL-MajSW4LS = what is this ? my teacher...Egalite ..51.3%~52.8%, 6COL-UnBal (just for Fauzy) = 51.7%, variations of 6COL-UnBal (passed and tested to a few GG members at the time) 51.9%~52.9%. Just found another couple AS3-3LJ-Stay = 53.8%, AS5 =50.8%

beloved Egalite,
thank you

[gr8player]

Great post, Mattman, thanks. I am quite familiar with "reversion to the mean", and you present a rather cogent case; good job, my friend.

But, this is BACCARAT. This is a closed-end, shoe game. I am a firm believer, a FIRM BELIEVER, that each individual shoe (and, most certainly, sections therein) carry certain "traits" within them.

That's why, if you read my post just above rather carefully, I stated that your bet selection, even with it's better than 50% strike rate, must be utilized only "AFTER a certain trigger". (Look above and you'll see it.) That is why I needn't wait "forever" for my variances to correct themselves, or, as you put it, "revert back to the mean".

I do not believe all bet selections are created equally, nor do I believe all shoes are created equally.

Suffice to say....."viva la difference"!

I feel compelled to state, Mattman, that I don't expect much agreeance on this topic, and I'm fine with that if you are. To each his own.

[mattman]

I do not believe all bet selections are created equally, nor do I believe all shoes are created equally.

Than this is where we disagree, I suppose-- mathematically speaking, they are all equal in a random game such as the one we play; however, I am open to the notion that playing in one casino may be different from another- but capitalizing on such incredibly subtle differences is a task that can be a maddening, if not ultimately useless one.

Waiting for triggers never made any sense to me, just never understood it's purpose, when we can never really mathematically seem to gain an advantage. I happily agree to disagree with you on this, because you appear reasonable on the subject, which is crucial to any real fruitful methods of discussion and discourse.

[LOTI]

I have tested 60 different bet selections at the same time for baccarat, as well as a fair 50/50 coin flip game and found that there is no way to take advantage of variance.

I have had two different skilled programmers (one Imspirit) test thousands of different iterations (such as wait for X players/bankers in Y decisions and bet for Z hands) and it proved there is no way to take advantage of variance.

[mattman]

I have tested 60 different bet selections at the same time for baccarat, as well as a fair 50/50 coin flip game and found that there is no way to take advantage of variance.

I have had two different skilled programmers (one Imspirit) test thousands of different iterations (such as wait for X players/bankers in Y decisions and bet for Z hands) and it proved there is no way to take advantage of variance.

Makes perfect sense- just because you know something's happening, that something is going to occur in the future, doesn't mean one can capitalize on it in the future. In fact it's impossible in a game of even chance- the sad thing, is, people will play a certain way, see it working, and then create their own fantasies as to why it worked; Bryan made a career out of this, and I'm sure a (precious) few others have as well. If you want to gamble, gamble. Just know that we're all in the same sinking ship, and a rising tide is only going to lift a few life boats out of thousands in the long maiden voyage. Quit while your ahead, IMO, and gamble only with what you can afford to lose- only good advice I can give on here.

[gr8player]

Loti, thank you for your input. As always, much appreciated.

I play for the exact same trends consistently, and I track their strike rates continually. When I see one (or more) of them lagging further than "normal" (read: below average), I'll look for their upturn in the immediate future. This works for me. And, it was borne, frankly, out of neccessity:

You can have a bet selection that's been relatively good for you.....until it ISN'T. Then, you begin doubting both yourself and your selections, and so you "change" and change and re-change; going through bet selections like changing your underwear. That, my friends, just won't fly.

I've learned to remain consistent in my plays, and USE THEIR INEVITABLE DOWNTURNS to my advantage. It didn't take me a week to learn to do so, it took me years. So, I don't expect much agreeance here in this Forum, and I'm fine with that. Just know this: Alot is possible if your mind is open.

Anyhow, thanks again, Loti, for you input.

Mattman, you're a true gentleman, and debating you is a pleasure. I recall, at the Glen, a member named Kelly, and I had similar discourses with him as well. While we never did come to any real agreeance on this particular subject, the mutual respect of each position and person was quite obvious, and, I must say, rather refreshing in these Forums.

While you see no particular advatages in bet selections, I do; and may I simply add:

Looking at a shoe is similar to looking at a beautiful piece of artwork; you may not know exactly why you adore it, you just know that you do. Be it a Bac shoe or a painting, you know a good one when you see it.

Well, I enjoy (read: take advantage of) the good ones, while limiting (as best I can) the damage in the "clunkers".

I trust you can readily see my point, as well as I see yours.

[Egalite]

a variation of 6COL-MajSW4LS = what is this ?

Record decisions using columns of six (6COL), bet next column the majority (Maj) of the prior column, or remain betting the same side last bet if the column is balanced, aim for a single win (SW) yet stop betting after 4 losses (4LS).

Simple enough. 6COL-MajSW4LS

Just wanted to add my post above. I have seen the stats for the number of combinations for a single 70 hand shoe, but can't remember what exactly they were, something in the region of 74 million million, or 74 billion different combinations, anyway it was some astronomical figure. So given a figure of that size, what is the point of testing against 100, 200, 1000, 1600, 1 million, 2 million, 10 million shoes?? All of those figures are minuscule to what can occur in any single shoe, (also any bet selection positive after a 1 million decision test is also meaningless) all you are doing is testing against a very small fraction of what can happen in any given shoe, never mind multiple shoes. It has real limited value, you would be far better off, designing money management schemes being able to to handle extremes of losing decisions, such as 10~12 bets in a row, or winning 4 bets from 20.

A set of data is just that, a set of data. I reach 54.3% against my own data using AS4, I also know that AS4 is negative against both Zumma books (in fact 99% of methods are negative against the Zumma books, those few that are positive I've posted them on this board yonks ago). So who is right and who is wrong? Nobody. Unless you have a set of 75 zillion decisions covering every possible shoe combination (like one almighty massive binary table), I doubt Excel could handle it. So if you have access to a Cray for a few hours!!!

But there is no need, having spent considerable time with binary tables, I already know what the final answer will be and it is not negative. Rather most bet selections will return to a 50/50 state against data covering every possible scenario. Of course while at the table, you are dealing in fractions of fractions of this sub-set, which is why anything can happen.


Nice responses Matt, saved me the bother, 100% in agreeance with you.

[soxfan]

All bet selections will resolve to about 50%, that is certain. Different bs methods do produce differing cluster of w/l, so we need to use a progression to take advantage of those clusters to grind out a profit. Balls, bankroll and emotional staying power are necessity and that's why most can't cut it. In ain't rocket science but seems some cats don't even wanna go to the latrine less they have an "edge", hey hey.

[Egalite]

For those who dream about beating the Zumma books, I made two threads on this site (zumma buster), which according to my crude testing methodology turned out positive against 1600 shoes. However seems a few didn't quiet take to the suggestions offered, as it eventually received about 2 stars, not sure if was the trending aspect that turned readers off, or simply the fact many don't care about beating the Zumma books.

[tomla]

its funny,, im a more recent part time baccarat player and the shoes in zumma dont event come close to the 200 real shoes ive played so far