Baccarat Soxfan Flat Holy Grail

I will say this I look for streaks in my grid not so much trying to catch banker or player streaks.
With the majority of plays hitting in the one and two range a grid that attempts to catch those will tend to have long streaks. Basically creating you own.

 

Haven’t seen the Al-Relax in a long time

 

I was thinking why Rinad's idea seems to work so well and there is this to think about.

In an average shoe, there will be the following.

21 occurrences of single wins.
10 occurrences of double wins.
5-6 occurrences of three wins in a row.
3 occurrences of 4 wins in a row.
1 consecutive win streak of 5,6,7,8 or 9.

So everything halves until it gets down to the 4 wins in a row and then it goes to just 1 in 3 for a streak of 5,6,7,8, or 9.
Now remember these are just averages and your mileage may vary but maybe this explains it a little as to why it seems to hold up so well.

cheers

 

@baccarou yep those are the numbers. Singles 50% Doubles 25% Triples 12.5% Quads 6.25% and so on. The problem is that trying to figure out when these occur is difficult. If there are 21 occurrences of singles, you can group them and take a somewhat of an advantage bet on them happening again.

 

Those averages do not apply to one shoe. Not even close and it does not matter if its casino on online shoes. I don't know how a one in four came up when four goes to five. For that to be a stat it has to be what you or who ever wrote it encountered.
Look at those stats as Baccarat being one long game. You could see a shoe or even a few shoes with follow as the main thing showing up. Then see shoes where there are continual singles....
When you have collected several hundred they should all come to the 50-50 mark. If they don't that would be a bias and imbalance. The question is will it continue or is it over? Will it balance out?

 

I agree with Porky - is silly way to talk about series.

Here is the real deal.

Singles has the value of 1
Series of two has the value 0
Series of three has the value 1
Series of four has the value 2
Series of five has the value 3
And so it conintues

Now pick several sequences with seven singles and any amount of series of two
Then wait for a series of three to show

Now start the observation and calculate the probabiliy and math for regression or 3+ STDV

This can happen when you don't get seven more singles or seven more single and one series of three
First one is above 3 and the other one can become above or exact 3 STDV

So you have a series of three in front of you, if it become a series of four, you still have a chance to get seven more singles and 3 STDV
But the expecation is regression so two more POINTS will happen in any combination.

Two series of three will show and not seven more singles
A series of five show and not seven more singles
Or any other combination like a series of four and another series of three, total 3 POINTS

The majority of singles will be less and among them you will have series of three and above, so need to wait for seven singles, that was just observation illustartion.

You can flat betting that way and win in the casino on regular basis.

 

Porky, I agree with you. No, it doesn't come out like that every shoe or the game probably wouldn't exist. Now on saying that and in the 500 shoes that I tested with Rinad's suggestion, there were loads of shoes without too many Banker streaks of 4+ and that's why I was doing well in my testing. Like I said 'your mileage may vary'.

Long term and as we know and cps10 said..

singles 50 %
doubles 25 %

and therefore 75 % = 1's and 2's. As Craig Greiner said in his book ''The Future Gambler'' you need to be able to handle ''the bag of trash'' shoes to win consistently at this game and not rely on streaks. I have known for a long time that streaks are pretty much fools gold in this game. Going through a lot of the systems talked about on the net and most of them have one common achilles heel and that's the 2's. Figure them out and you are half way there.

 

Wrong

There is as many singles as there is series - so the real difference between getting a series of two or above is so small that the probability vanish.
Because all series inculded in the series of three and above, 3456789 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 and so on and you can calculate them as one.

But if you do the singles and series of two and skip all other formation betting that way you will not get 50/25 in any shoe or 300 trail sample.
As they never come in perfect order and the pendulum effect follows the Bell Curve that STDV calculation windows where an 3+ has 0.5% to occur, so in 14 events you would some times get two series of two and all the others as other events if you look deeper into normal varaince.

 

I don't have time to read all the ideas and test them and Sputnik's ideas are sometimes hard to digest plus I don't agree with a lot of his methodology even though he says you will find no better public method. Sputnik, I know for a fact that you were told by several respectable and well informed players / researchers that all this 'marigny' stuff doesn't work but hey, you are entitled to your opinion like we all are. Where it all gets a bit tedious is when you come out with the 'nobody has a better method than this' rhetoric. Trust me, several have way better and just to prove it, I may even go ahead and show a few of my results from some bona-fide live play tonight on the single dozens because those are a bit topical at the moment.

 

My Friend - there is a reason why Marigny De Grilleau made those playing models as you need the probability criteria (correction, regression, expectation) and the math criteria (ECART, Z-score, STDV)

This formula make you see the future with certain degree of liklehood and majority of times it become true.
And the odds are favoring you.

So the real question is not about how to win on regular basis visit an casino, the question is how to reduce loses or take a scratch trade (TIE).
My answer to that is Holloway when it comes to EC.

Let me show why is not working as you suggest.
If you had series chopping with larger lenght then 2s - they would grow imbalance and create room for some degree of expecation.
But there is no window pressure with Overrpresented events and Underrepresented events that will make 2s to show after such imblance.

But using the following way that i describe above that works with more then singles, series of two and series of three with value 1 and so on.
Then get the expectaion of larger series.
As you get a real true underrepresented situation with imbalance and STDV PRESSURE

So my advice is to forget about such ideas.

Cheers

 

Yes you are right and i agree with you - there is no one that can prove any working method using any methodology.
And why would you respect gamblers who say they win but have never show any working method in public.
They lie and are the same as scam artist.

Gamblers fallacy + EC or Math and Probabiltiy + EC - the decision is simple.

So i am free to have my opinion and you are free to have your opinion.
And i think most topics in this forum board are garbage.

As almost all are based upon Gamblers fallacy and no math and probability calculations.
Is like kids drawing picture in the kindergarden and say look at my picture, what do you think, money maker or not.

And there is no experts, as Soxfan use Gamblers Fallacy using Banker side and others claim and claim and have no solid back up, just empty words.
So your experts you refereing to has nothing.

Cheers

 

And yes @baccarou i don't play 50/50 as there is no value or edge, but i help others to get better solutions then empty talk and empty claims that make them dream that one day i will become as succes full as that lier and travel the world and stop working for a living.

Caleb do just that and i know what it takes, becease i have several times been proven how clever and how much knowledge he has.

I have statistics to prove my points, and explination that everyone is free to follow and see the truth for them self, that is my back up, what do your respected liers have to prove there points, empty talk and create more dreamers in this forum board.

I don't want to offend, but is time to wake up and change path and be succesfull.
I know punters who have been around for a decay and still don't know how to win.

Cheers

 

Fair enough Sputnik, at least we both agree on something, lol.

It's all very subjective (gambling) but what can't work in the past can't work in the future IMO. There is not much point in trying to twist things around using this progression or that progression for instance thinking it will make a huge difference to a methodology. Something either works or it doesn't.

 

Again, I agree and no real offence taken on my part. You can't always help people no matter how hard you try to impart some knowledge and to be fair to you, you have tried for a long time to share what you believe in. Hey, there is no real harm in that because as readers, we can take it or leave it. Anyway, the forums are just about done, there is not much mileage left in them and the newbies are a lot worse off than we were when we first started reading all those years ago. The desire to share and be helpful just isn't there anymore apart from a select few and I do count you as one of those few.

cheers

 

Exactly what I pointed out. The “when”. It will balance itself out due to the odds of the game. However you won’t be there to catch it in most cases.

Let’s say singles on average come up 21 times in a shoe. Maybe you scale that back to 15 to catch variance. Then you can possibly set benchmarks, with say every two singles, then bet on a third to show up. You then have five realistic wins in a shoe. Money management is the way to make sure you don’t screw yourself.

Maybe even an expectation of just 12 singles per shoe should be acceptable risk. Once you hit that goal of four wins, then you come off that shoe. I have been testing this for a few weeks on my live shoes and it’s really paid off.

 

@Sputnik

One thing you and I have discussed in the past is the series in relation to singles. 1 stands on its own as it is supposed to occur 50% of the time. 2 is 25% of the time and 3+ is the other 25%. Like you said, singles and series should occur equally (although we know sometimes they don’t). Consider the 27 possible sequences:

111
112
113
121
122
123
131
132
133
211
212
213
221
222
223
231
232
233
311
312
313
321
322
323
331
332
333

20 of the 27 contain at least two series of 2 or larger. So out of three sequences you should expect two series over 70% of the time. ON AVERAGE of course. This is data that can be used. Again, will it happen all of the time? No. But those are hard facts.

 

Nice - did not look it with that perspective - thanks

Today many posts and been active - i had 5 set and forget bets today and no live trades.

You and Jimskey are awesome.

Cheers

 

@Sputnik as are you buddy. Keep doing what you’re doing. I have great respect for you and your teachings. I have a few baseball bets today. Hoping to stay over 56% for my career.

 

whats your system for betting sports thats my thing!!!

 

I don’t have a system. I just analyze plays and determine the strength of them and bet accordingly. I’ve not had a losing year in a decade of doing this.