Baccarat Anti Streak Betting

Your guesses on B will win 50.7% of the time and your guesses on P will win 49.3% of the time unless you are endowed with a unique extrasensory perception to guess correctly. Some people may have the knack or talent to guess correctly and it can not be ruled out entirely. Whether the talent can be developed by practice is not known. There is a need to further research on ESP, especially with reference to baccarat.

 

The Reading Randomness thread is a validation process experiment where the peer review group is made up of gamblers that are familiar with at least the basic skills to learn and to place bets properly. It is presented as a theory. It includes instructions and a method to follow with a strict suggestion to strategic session play.

It's all about learning a skill of guessing. A few have rejected it because trends and patterns where in a phase of a common losing streak when they started trying it. Others have quit on it because it does not work all the time, like an ATM machine that will change their lives forever.

Still a few have set out to run this experiment, within the confines of the suggestions, and have developed the skills to change their win to loss ratios from the so called impossible 50 / 50 results to a 2 to 1 advantage of close to 66% / 33%. This is disputed by people that are basically mathematically oriented to the each spin at a time, "each spin is an independent event" frame of mind.

A few other players have discovered these concepts on their own and have developed threads of discussion on gambling forums over the past 20 years. The RR thread is the first time that everything has been openly exposed. Nothing is just hinted at. One successful participant has suggested not only practicing the skills a lot of times but also reading the thread at least five times in order to catch things learned only through experience and that are noticeable after gaining this experience through practicing. You can skip the interruptions, the grand standing for advocation of absolutism presented as actual known mathematical fact, and the character cancellations after the first time through. There are other threads where I have disclosed secrets regarding the method. A lot of that is here.

I started hinting at this back in 2006 at a gambling forum called Gambler's Glen. The basic principle of situational awareness and effectiveness states were clearly discussed there and rejected by all but one or two people. I believe that Kino Li and Spike stood out as supporting this way back then.

So there is a process for knowing if a skill for guessing can be learned and shown by demonstration. Only a small handful of people have taken the time to exploit this and have come forward to show their results openly. But the group of skillful is slowly growing in numbers. So have fun if you are going to read this. I have been defending the concept of Reading Randomness since 2006 on the internet and have grown thick skinned and scornful, quick to make a judgment on absolutists, and it shows in that thread. The self titled "mathZombies" is a spin off of the already well known pejorative "mathBoyz," as they were already being referred to back in 2006 at the Gambler's Glen forum. The thread is completed. It can't be changed, canceled, or disrupted to death. That makes it an open, free-for-all, wild west kind of a discussion being located at this very open thinking gambling forum that just does not consider safe places for "snowflakes," as they are known by in modern culture on the internet.

 

Yer wastin yer times tryin to talk senses to retard and imbecile who will never get it through their low iq peas-brain that the baccarats is NOT the 50-50 proposition, hey hey.

 

A lot of words but I don't understand.

 

It's a response to this by Stephen: "Some people may have the knack or talent to guess correctly and it can not be ruled out entirely. Whether the talent can be developed by practice is not known."

My long winded response is a validation that the ability to guess at a 2 to 1 win to loss ratio can in fact be "developed by practice." Not only is it demonstrated but the information includes the amount that it is demonstrated. It's supposed to never exceed 50 / 50, or 50% / 50% win to loss ratio.

So many people have now come forward, that have not given up, and demonstrated these skills learned just by reading the RR thread and practicing in order to develop these skills.

I hope that at least this helps you understand what I have said.

 

It's a response to this by Stephen: "Some people may have the knack or talent to guess correctly and it can not be ruled out entirely. Whether the talent can be developed by practice is not known."

Yes can't be overlooked but anything that can't be quantified probably is difficult at best to teach or transfer.

 

Sigh. So boring. 50-50, coin flip, even chance (EC) game. All monikers of a game where, as everyone knows, Banker has a small edge.

Question is why do people use those monikers and why is soxfan so upset over their use?

The answer to the former is simple. Since noone can predict the next outcome the choice is a guess. A "coin flip: so to speak.

Regarding the later soxfan has linked his entire identity to the idea that one can flat bet Banker and overcome the HA. And all who wager Player are "morons" and "retards."

So he has spent a lot of bandwidth attempting to persuade all that he and he only has the winning formula. Any alternate methodology would crush the poor boy's ego.

But he has a problem. His theory is well.... bullshit. Even the samples he posted show it's nonsense.

Pfffff!

 

Pony up some cake to make it worths my while and come at me with LEGIT live dealt baccarats result and I'll prove my style. Yer low level low iq dumb-fuckery and retardation is makin my head hurt. The limey ain't the brightest bulb in a drawer but the boy is a freakin genius comapre to you, hey hey!

 

What are monikers?
The dictionary meaning is names.
I don't think that is what you meant.

 

It's sort of like rock climbing skills. That section that you climbed a year or two ago, where the crux was so difficult, this year you went past it without even noticing that it was a struggle. That happens. It's because you have learned how to conserve energy and move correctly. The same thing happens with becoming familiar with common characteristics of randomness. They take on a form of normality so that you can tell when it's outside the range of common.

The only way to quantify randomness through the observation of randomness is to become familiar with what becomes a sort of condition of common. You can't use it deterministically, but you can use it to know when it is in a condition of continuing. You can teach anyone to see conditions that are in a state of continuing.

 

It looks to be similar to be aware of being aware or conscious of consciousness!

 

You mean hunches and gut feelings?

 

You are not the first person to suggest that to me. Looks like something I should look into. I'm headed for spinal cord surgery in 4 hours. So I will be stuck for 6 to 12 weeks convalescing in front of my keyboard. I'll have plenty of time to check this out. Thanks.

I don't have much faith in holistic medicine. So magical beliefs in healthcare suggestions with minor results and often times negligent advice have given reason for me to remain cautious. Still, there could be a hidden secret in that the topic of seeing randomness through Reading Randomness methods might learn a lot from others already researching other skillful methods of observation.

 

I got this so far:

I see "Consciousness" as being instinctively aware because of intuition. This to me is a kind of a knowing without confirmation. Yet RR is specifically knowing that a condition is in a state of continuing. It does not let you know that something will happen. It does let you know that something is still happening.

https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-consciousness-and-vs-awareness/

 

Maybe. But RR is all about waiting for conditions that are still in a state of continuing. It's therefore more about knowing. It's awareness centered.

 

Exactly! You are reacting to the state of play and not fumbling about making decisions based on hunches. If you understand a particular concept, then you can't not see it happening right in front of your very eyes. When it's over, it's over and then you can wait for something else to come along. I like to give something a spin or two at most to show me that it's still working. What this does is bring an element of control to your play, you can't control the decisions but you can control yourself and how you attack them. Basing things on hunches and you can quickly lose control and end up betting every spin and getting nowhere fast. If you are betting every spin, then make sure it's because you are in a winning streak.

 

gizmotron,

Wishing you a speedy recovery.

 

Each to their own but . . playing like this can be akin to calling it a 6th sense. Without some defined structure it becomes difficult to explain. Perhaps you could start a new thread? Why talk about it here? This thread is about anti streak betting.

J

 

Yep, sorry Ghost Rider, I should have posted this in a more appropriate thread.

 

Uh yeah, this whole hunches, guts feelins stuff is foolishness, and nonsenses. Only pure objective, mechanical, fixed bet style are viable, hey hey.