Baccarat Baccarats Truth

You should just stop, now, hey hey.

 

This is a very true statement.

Cheers

 

This is the reason casinoverse has all the money. The average degen try’s out his new beaut whorey gale but it crumbles at the first obstacle, tearful and desperate the degen frantically looks for another whorey gale, you know you can buy them for $50 on this very forum, but the degen can’t make that work either.
Is it the whorey?
Is it the degenerate?
Using the quote as a starting point, I’m saying it’s the degenerate buckling at the first instance of pressure.
Everything is in fact a whorey gale .

Read again
Everything is in fact a whorey gale. It’s usually operator error, lack of adequate bankroll, lack of discipline, unreasonable expectations on rate of return.

There are a fabulous number of methods discussed for free this forum that are more than adequate to meet the needs of many this forum.
You just have to grow some balls and go more than 2 rounds, lol.

 

and how much is enough to know bottom of truth are you winning forever . 10 000 roulette spins 10 000 shoes ? 3000 shoes may take for some people 10 years if doing one every day

 

I guess that's correct. The sea state can be formidable! But everything is not, in fact, a HOLY GRAIL.

I think it's pretty well understood in the context of gaming that a HG is devoid of all subjectivity. As soxfan has pointed out more than once it requires no spidey supernatural powers or guessing. It must have rules that any number of people could follow with the same positive outcome.

This is the real question. "it ain't rocket science baby, hey, hey." One could reasonably conjecture that nothing is 100%. There's something called... LOL... standard deviation which enables a calculation of risk of ruin. In theory a true holy grail will not have any risk of ruin. But I think it's generally accepted that a risk of ruin of about 5% would suffice to qualify as a holy grail. Meaning out of a hundred contestants five would fail and ninety five would achieve positive results. I think, as Patrik has pointed out, a standard division of about 3 would certainly put us in the ballpark of 5% or less. Numbers of spins? Soxfan has implied that 160,000 spins qualifies. That's probably enough.

 

Correction. I meant to say wagers not spins.

 

How many minimum rounds do you suggest?
100 is too many.

 

and how many units profit with what bankroll in your opinion. few hundreds with 160 000 bets are not enough.
the 5 % rule works with stock market and sport betting, but with casino the varience is quite high. i will post some stats into soxfan thread about it

 

I say old chap jolly good show, hey hey.

 

you will? Can't find it.

 

I found a new truth about random bits - you can delay and reduce variance using runs of local attractors.
This is how I notice, in 300 placed bets I should encounter a series of eight losses in a row.
The distribution of Winning and losing bets follows the same principle no matter what triggers or sequences you use.
Or at least I have been told this is a fact, but that is not the truth and I agree with Holloway.
Using sequential cycles and clustering groups in certain manners you can achieve amazing results.

For example, what are the odds of getting one loss with 3 in a row after 38 bets?

 

im gathering results at the moment.