Let's squash the "bet Banker" myth with some accurate math and start winning at last!

[Sethbets]

Does anybody know of a casino where you can place a 1 unit bet on player and if player hits, you win 1.1 units?

LOL

Poor Benny-boy, still stuck on the "you win 1.1 units" thing when you don't even need all your fingers and thumbs to figure out how progressive betting (and only progressive betting, when you lose more bets than you win) can routinely ensure that your average winning bet's value exceeds the value of your average losing bet by a substantial percentage. However, you do have to know how to count, and if Banker's Boy counts as well as he writes, I can see his problem and sympathize.

Anyone out there who believes Benn Gunn's claims for himself must surely feel privileged to have encountered the world's very first pea-brained genius.

Given the reluctance on the part of some contributors to accept the most basic and simple mathematical truth about games of chance, all I can do is keep posting corroborative data on my website and in the new Target SkyDrive folder so that those with an open mind can read what's there and use anything that is helpful to them.

Let's recap, for the sake of everyone but Benn Gunn, who has a hard time with numbers: Flat betting cannot beat the house advantage in the long run; random betting cannot beat the house advantage in the long run; progressive betting can and does beat the house advantage long term, but not without a strict set of rules and an acceptance of occasional high risk. The risk is not an option for you any more than it is for the house when a high-roller hits a rare lucky streak. The more you seek to limit your risk, the more certain it is that you will fall prey to the house edge. The lower the risk tolerance, the sooner the demise.

The samples I have posted, all processed with the same diligence with regard to truth and accuracy as anything published by Imspirit, demonstrate over and over again that a 1-5,000 spread will routinely require less action, therefore a smaller average bet, therefore less overall exposure than betting a 1-50 spread. Often, 1-5,000 will require less of a threat to the bankroll than spreading 1-10. It's all there. Has been for weeks. But the hard of thinking (worse than being hard of hearing, for sure) don't get it because they don't want to. Or, like Carl Lund/Egalite/John/Nick or whatever, they "don't know...don't care"!

All of that information has been available almost since my first post 23 days ago. LOTI won't comment on it because he can't understand it. Imspirit hasn't because he's too busy with awe-inspiring but totally irrelevant studies on the effects of the removal of different cards from a baccarat shoe. His blog and his summaries of his work are something to be proud of, but since he now admits that he followed the one and only Target rule that Benn Gunn gave him, and did t twice, there's a screw loose there somewhere.

Cuts, burns, deck penetration, pattern-spotting, predictions and all the amazing ideas that people on this group love to talk about it are all, sad to say, as ultimately meaningless as Imspirit's gorgeous new tables. Which of the two options in baccarat you choose to put your money on doesn't matter - how much you bet and when you bet it is the only thing that counts. Target Betting works splendidly on Banker, but you need to know that you will win more money backing Player because the 5% commission is there solely to make you pay dearly for any help you might get from winning more bets than you lose. Save the commission by backing Player all the way, that's all I'm saying - along with rejecting any irrelevance such as the perfectly obvious statement that "if you flat bet Banker you will lose less than if you flat bet Player."

Bluff and bluster aside, it always comes down to the math.

Target on SkyDrive


Keep winning!

Seth T.

Blog
Home

New file
WOO 1,000 summaries
WOO files on Google Docs

[LOTI]

Let's see what Imspirit has to say, shall we:

Baccarat Simulation Series 34 Results: Target Betting (Bare Bones’ Core Rules) « ImSpirit

Seth,
I do not frequent BF, and I tested the rules which Benn described as the bare bones aspect of your Target Betting, which he obtained directly from your site. Thanks for letting me know there are more rules, but Benn accurately relayed the fundamental core of your bare bones rules.
You can certainly add more and more rules to that core, but in the long run, no money management or bet progression procedure will ever be able to make a negative expectancy game positive. I know this to be true many ways, including analytical mathematical proofs, numerical results, and simple reasoning.

I’m happy to change the title of my post to more accurately reflect that I only tested the “core” of your bare bones Target Betting. Instead of “Target Betting (Bare Bones),” the title is now “Target Betting (Bare Bones’ Core Rules).”
I ran my tests over several publicly available data sets, so that you or anyone else can easily verify that the results I reported are accurate and completely faithful to Target Betting bare bones’ core rules.
Other than that, I hope you will understand that I am not interested in testing any other aspects of your Target Betting approach.
Those who would like to learn more about Target Betting are welcome to contact you directly at your site, which they may reach by clicking on your name.
I wish you the best in all of your endeavors and at the tables.

[Jamesbac]

HI There Mr Seth.
Do you want this tested using these rules?
After an opening loss, bet 5x the previous bet (PB).
After a second loss, bet PB/2 and do the same after a third loss.
If losses continue, repeat the bet (NB=PB) until a win, then apply the LTD+ rule.

After an opening win, bet 2x (NB=PBx2), and keep doing that after each successive win until the bet hits $200.
When the win progression (WP) x2 limit is reached, NB=PB+$100 until a loss ends the winning streak.
When an opening winning streak ends with a loss, NB= the lesser of PBx2 or PB+$100 and LTD=PB.
If losses continue, freeze the bet (NB=PB) and continue doing so until a win calls for the LTD+TGT rule.
regards james

[Sting]

I is going to start saving up 25ooo so I can play a 1 / 5000 spread target betting spread on $5 dollar tables

[Sethbets]

Let's see what Imspirit has to say, shall we:

Baccarat Simulation Series 34 Results: Target Betting (Bare Bones’ Core Rules) « ImSpirit

Seth,
I do not frequent BF, and I tested the rules which Benn described as the bare bones aspect of your Target Betting, which he obtained directly from your site. Thanks for letting me know there are more rules, but Benn accurately relayed the fundamental core of your bare bones rules.
You can certainly add more and more rules to that core, but in the long run, no money management or bet progression procedure will ever be able to make a negative expectancy game positive. I know this to be true many ways, including analytical mathematical proofs, numerical results, and simple reasoning.

I’m happy to change the title of my post to more accurately reflect that I only tested the “core” of your bare bones Target Betting. Instead of “Target Betting (Bare Bones),” the title is now “Target Betting (Bare Bones’ Core Rules).”
I ran my tests over several publicly available data sets, so that you or anyone else can easily verify that the results I reported are accurate and completely faithful to Target Betting bare bones’ core rules.
Other than that, I hope you will understand that I am not interested in testing any other aspects of your Target Betting approach.
Those who would like to learn more about Target Betting are welcome to contact you directly at your site, which they may reach by clicking on your name.
I wish you the best in all of your endeavors and at the tables.

"Core rule" would be the correct description, since the LTD+ rule was the only one that LOTI passed along.

I know, and have posted data to prove, that the full set of Target rules beat WOO and the two Zummas, and I am adding new files to the Target SkyDrive folder as fast as I can so that those who care to can see the correct bets line by line and shoe by shoe.

I am going to give Imspirit the benefit of the doubt and assume that when he says "you can change the rules all you want..." he's not suggesting that I changed the rules after October 6 when I first posted them. LOTI changed them. But LOTI aka Benn Gunn aka Banker's Boy has demonstrated repeatedly that he likes to change the facts to suit his pea-brained theories (as in "does anyone know a casino where a winning bet on Player pays 1.1:1?"

I have never in my life tested ONLY the LTD+ rule, because that would be like evaluating a test vehicle after removing one of the wheels or cutting the brake cables. I will however do exactly that with the LOTICRAP samples already put up for verification. I can't predict the effect of disabling the brakes, but once I have guidelines - from the facts and not from speculation on my part or anyone else's - I will transmit them to Imspirit and let him decide whether he's happy to let stand the half-job he's done so far.

I'm still just a little bit curious as to why someone who takes pride in accuracy and open-mindedness (and believe me, I'm not referring to LOTI when I say that!) would want to do all that work based upon third-hand information. I have never done that in my life.

Good to know that Imspirit writes as concisely as he crunches numbers. I guess now I can be reassured that he and LOTI are not two heads of the same mad dog!

Lastly, I conceded decades ago that no progressive betting strategy can beat billion-bet sims, or any construct which pretends to mimic actual playing conditions, but does not and cannot come close. I suggest to everyone that they take a look at the "skip" files I have posted because they show (to the extent that any large sample devoid of human interaction can) what we can expect if we do as every flesh-and-blood player does and apply damage control by walking away from a clearly anomalous downturn.

Oh, and by way of a reply to Imspirit, let me just say this: "I am disappointed that you are, in so many words, not interested in getting it right. Do you work for Microsoft, by any chance?"

Bluff and bluster aside, it always comes down to the math.

Target on SkyDrive


Keep winning!

Seth T.

Blog
Home

New file
WOO 1,000 summaries
WOO files on Google Docs

[LOTI]

Oh Imspirit thinks you are a deluded clown as well, he just keeps it to himself which is fine by me.

And what do you think the long term is you clown? You can't have it both ways where you say:

I have a method that bets on player and wins in the long run

and then say

Nobody can beat a billion decision simulation.

Don't you see the contradiction you clown?

Seth took the Pepsi challenge and chose Jif!

[Sethbets]

Oh Imspirit thinks you are a deluded clown as well, he just keeps it to himself which is fine by me.

And what do you think the long term is you clown? You can't have it both ways where you say:

I have a method that bets on player and wins in the long run

and then say

Nobody can beat a billion decision simulation.

Don't you see the contradiction you clown?

Seth took the Pepsi challenge and chose Jif!

Ahhhh, poor boy. Again with the misquotes. You dig out ancient Turnaround posts that pre-date modern computers by almost 15 years, but overlook the remarks I made back then that sims are a cheap trick created by people like you to mislead and befuddle people who actually play the game(s), and would like to learn how to do better than losing almost every time.

If you truly, honestly believe that billion-bet sims accurately reflect real play conditions, then you are a sap. If on the other hand, you know that full well and are repeatedly pretending otherwise, then you are, to out it bluntly, a cynical, amoral liar.

Speaking of which...


----

Good Luck Ian Harmer you nutcase

Stephen

---

Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 12:08:39 -0700
From: sethbets@gmail.com
To: john_baccarat@live.co.uk
Subject: Re: Now I am somebody else


Who you are doesn't matter much. What you are is plain for all to see. But when I get your real name (and I'm certainly not busting a gut over it), I will be sure to edit it into all the Egalite references I have made on BF.

Seth T.




On 10/29/2011 11:38 AM, john baccarat wrote:

Make you mind up Ian.

First it is Carl Lund, now you call me nick? Where has that name come from?


Johno

---

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, and am happy to go to all reasonable lengths to help them see where they're wrong and I'm right. This includes posting detailed proofs of my point of view, which does not come off the top of my head but is backed up by extensive research and very careful study.

I do object to hypocrites who piss all over other people's privacy rights but defend their own. A contact in London passed on that he'd picked up the name Nick via a server that he looked at, and suggested it might be it might be linked to the john-baccarat e-mail address on Live. I really don't care. But as I have promised Egalite, if I do get access to his full name and other relevant information, I will certainly post it as often as possible by way of returning a favor.

Sometimes you have to fight a fire by pissing on it. It may be vulgar, but it works (as long as the fire is as tiny as Egalite has proved himself to be).

Bluff and bluster aside, it always comes down to the math.

Target on SkyDrive


Keep winning!

Seth T.

Blog
Home

New file
WOO 1,000 summaries
WOO files on Google Docs

[Sethbets]

HI There Mr Seth.
Do you want this tested using these rules?
After an opening loss, bet 5x the previous bet (PB).
After a second loss, bet PB/2 and do the same after a third loss.
If losses continue, repeat the bet (NB=PB) until a win, then apply the LTD+ rule.

After an opening win, bet 2x (NB=PBx2), and keep doing that after each successive win until the bet hits $200.
When the win progression (WP) x2 limit is reached, NB=PB+$100 until a loss ends the winning streak.
When an opening winning streak ends with a loss, NB= the lesser of PBx2 or PB+$100 and LTD=PB.
If losses continue, freeze the bet (NB=PB) and continue doing so until a win calls for the LTD+TGT rule.
regards james

Hey, Jamesbac - Go right ahead. That's pretty much the protocol I follow in real play. But of course in real play, I do all sorts of things that the "player" is not permitted to do in a billion-bet sim. I have written extensively about this over the years, but I don't expect you to know that, or even care. The loudest, rowdiest "contributors" to this group don't care about anything much other than defending the casino mantra that "you can't win in the long run so learn to enjoy losing." Not that I'm putting you in that group, you understand!

Against simulations and very large data sets such as the WOO 1,000 etc., I dial Target down quite a bit because I know that almost no real play conditions will apply. I think it's safe to say that sane members of this group don't sit still and keep betting at max levels when a shoe/table goes cold. I know I don't. I move around a lot, because I learned long ago that what's known as "bad luck" is really just an egregious departure from statistical expectation and is unlikely to occur in two consecutive bet series at two different layouts. Can happen, but doesn't usually.

There are two specific areas in which Target reliably scores outside of the core LTD+ response to a mid-recovery win, and they involve the standard win-loss pattern -1, +1, -1, +1 which, obviously, applies to both sides and accounts for about 50% of all bets (you will have modeled that, I'm sure!).

I turn off the Opening Loss switch against sims, but in real play at least double the bet. That means that very frequently, I win a small amount in $ terms having broken even in W/L terms (for LOTI's sake, that means dollar amounts and wins over losses).

When a mid-series (or mid-recovery) win comes along after two or more opening losses, Target defies that reliable +1, -1 pattern in the hope of a second win (a "twin") and while a loss is statistically more likely, paired wins are frequent enough to ensure eventual success so long as the LTD+ formula is kept constantly updated. Target places reliance on -1, +1 again if the first turnaround attempt fails by requiring a repeat LTD+ bet. LTD always means the loss to date right now, before the next bet, but I'm sure that you will have figured that out (even if...).

In real play, I will allow the next bet (NB) value to go as high as 10x the previous bet (PB), but in trials I deliberately dial that down to 4x. I sometimes have to go with 4x in real play, too, if 10x would top the table cap and I'm not ready to hoof it out of there just yet.

One thing that never changes is the spread: 1 to 5,000 when absolutely necessary. If you look at the summaries I have posted online, you will see that time and time again, a 1-5,000 spread requires a lower action/average$/risk that 1-50, and sometimes is "safer" that betting a 1-10 spread. Most of the raucous defenders of the status quo can't be bothered to look past their own noses, but my website's hit-counter tells me that a whole lot of people are checking that stuff out. SkyDrive has turned out to be the best place to post Excel files (thanks again, Guido1) but I haven't yet found a way to track visitors there.

I have no way of knowing if you're genuinely interested or another Luddite, but if you take gambling at all seriously, you have to be aware that progressive betting is the only way to reliably overcome the house advantage at games of chance in the long run. Luck is not a factor. Fancy footwork is not a factor. Even "skipping" rounds at baccarat - and I use the same term when I walk away from any cold game - can only reduce the house edge in simulations: It only very rarely eliminates it.

What I have experienced here is much the same as past battles with die-hard blackjack players who, years ago, were often defending card-counting against what they saw as an affront. I have met Ed Thorp, and way back then he told me he and his team were working on a counting strategy for baccarat (we were at a backgammon tournament at the time, and I was momentarily confused because being focused on 21, I hardly knew what baccarat was!). A couple of years after that, I met a Thorp acolyte in downtown Las Vegas, and he boasted that he'd taken the MGM Grand for $35,000 the night before by counting down baccarat shoes. His biggest bet when I was with him was $50, so I was a little skeptical.

Whatever, I haven't heard anything about a counting strategy for baccarat since. Maybe that's because Thorp has finally developed it and is making millions while resisting the temptation to write about it!

The blackjack fuss was largely fueled by a fiery-tempered fellow who it turned out was peddling (still is!) a $600 software program to teach people how to count cards. The lead math brainiacs in the group, who had access to computers far fancier than my pathetic steam-powered Gateway, turned out to be risk assessors or game evaluators for two casinos, one in Reno and the other in Vegas. They were much like Imspirit, running millions of simulated rounds and then producing a set of numbers that said YOU LOSE, SUCKER!

The rules you posted are years out of date. To some, that prompts the predictable braying, "See - It didn't work - You changed the rules!!!" but what I see is a steady evolution made possible by the simply breathtaking improvements made to personal computers since I started all this. I first had a Xerox 820, with 64KB of RAM and programs that, of course, had to be written to that feeble limit. Now I'm at 6GB and Excel gives me more than 100,000 lines vs. 50 or so when I first started, then 8,192 for years.

I'm not selling anything (other than, eventually, a very funny book which will include outtakes from both BF and the old rec.gambling.blackjack boards) and all I really aim to do is as much damage as I possibly can to casino profits.

If you believe that progressive betting is a scam, then I would have wasted my time replying to your post - except for the fact that all these sessions will be saved for posterity and will be efficiently re-cycled!

The tough pill that many people can't - or won't - swallow is the simple truth that there is no winning alternative to progressive betting. That means high risk, but also high reward. It's how it is. It's not debatable. The one grey area involves exactly how progressive betting can best be applied. I have been working on that question for, um, 2011-1978 = 33 years, and I'm STILL working on it. If LOTI and other half-wit posters to this board had their way, there would be no evolution, no moving ahead in any field, and we'd all still be driving around in Model-T Fords.

Bluff and bluster aside, it always comes down to the math.

Target on SkyDrive


Keep winning!

Seth T.

Blog
Home

New file
WOO 1,000 summaries
WOO files on Google Docs