Baccarat Wizard of odds 1000 shoe Baccarat

.
baccarat cannot be beaten by relying on patterns from the past to predict the future

or basing betting on any type of pattern for that matter

the future results will be chaotic___________and not at all predictable

.

 

of course you're right but that doesn't mean that patterns or presentments in the past will not occur again in the future. But every subset is going to have some kind of bias meaning essentially that things will occur removed from their expected averages. No they can't be predicted. But they do occur and occur frequently enough to profit.

 

You need to wise up Half Smoke because at this stage after reading a selection of your posts, you sound like you are just trolling folk!

Put it this way! If I played Gary Kasparov at chess in 100 games, it's likely that he would beat me 100 to zip. Why? because He knows the game inside out, upside down and backwards. The comparison between that and Baccarat is that whilst he could think many moves ahead, a skilled baccarat player can know exactly what to do literally on a hand by hand basis to give himself the best chance to win the next hand.

As Stetson Baily said in his book

''If you fail to know, fail to prepare, fail to plan and practice, then know full well that you are knowingly preparing and planning to lose. What you don't know and don't do will be your undoing.''

What you don't know and don't do will be your undoing! And that's just it because most players don't know.

Based on your posts Half Smoke, I think our old friend Gizmotron might have said something along the lines that you are the poster boy for apathy and that's putting it politely.

I think someone like Jimske is qualified to say that things occur frequently and frequently enough to profit. No apathy there, just a lot of hard work and practise.

 

really - go ahead and prove it

on 2nd thought never mind - you can't and never will

and neither will anybody else on this forum ever prove that bet selection or money management can provide an edge in a negativity expectancy game

if anybody could they would be world famous for their amazing accomplishment

but that will never happen

all that will happen is they will post some nonsense here because they get their jollies trying to impress newbies re how knowledgeable they are

when in reality their words have no value at all -

it's all nothing more than a mirage

 

Everyone is right depending on what you are looking at. Both beatable and unbeatable shoes exist.

 

I will grant that you are correct if you are referring to the short run - which I think you are

but in the long run - no way - after thousands of results of the same size bets - or of the largest bets if it's a marty or some other kind of money management system - totally impossible

neither you nor anyone else can beat a negative expectancy game with bet selection or money management in the long run

and all of the posts on this forum that say otherwise are trifling and nonsensical and are likely to cause the suckerization of newbies who are unable to discern truth from fiction either due to inexperience or due to willful disregard of the inescapable realities of gambling

 

If you think there's nothing here that can help you become a better player, then why are you here?

 

I'm here to tell the truth - the absolute truth about gambling - the truth is always better than falsehoods even if it disappoints some

a player can have a better chance at winning in the short run by making bets with the lowest house edge such as Banker in bacc

and a player can lose less in the long run if he has a reasonable stop loss and stop win - since he will expose himself to the house edge much less than a player who continually plays

nothing at all wrong with recreational gambling - it can be fun - but it's always best to know exactly what is possible and what is not possible

there are legitimate ways to win in the long run at gambling - some very sharp bettors beat sports and there are still some card counters who are beating blackjack - those sharp enough in what they are doing so they don't get backed off by the house - although I don't believe that will work anymore for the big plungers who want to bet multiple hundreds on their big hands -

but scoping out patterns at bacc and roulette - naaah - that dog won't hunt

 

Actually there is some order to the chaos. You can predict with certainty long term that bankers will win just under 51 percent of decision. You can also predict with certainty that vast majority of streaks event will be duration four or less. And you can also predict with certainty, longs term the ratio of streaks, ones to two, two to threes, etc., hey hey.

 

We know how, but we don't know when the series of these 4 lengths will come out in that order. There will always be that element of uncertainty. It will happen, but it's not known at the beginning, middle or end of the shoe.

 

I discovered that there are five things that happens in baccarat,

 

I discovered that there are five things that happens in baccarat,
1PBPBPBPBPB and so on
2PP
3BB
4PPP and so on
5BBB and so on

 

Cats make profit by selectively wagering B avoiding PPP and so on. While PBPBPB balance out.


Hope this will help some cats out there.

 

Of course, things can stay out of whack for a single shoe, or the short or even the medium term, but in the long run, those things will pay out with certainty, and serious cats are only concerned with the long run, hey hey.

 

I was wondering how many times a series of more than 4 would occur in 2000 roulette spins.
I got 69 such series.

 

Maybe this is a good example of shoes. The beginning is dominated by terrible twos, the middle is about 50/50 of this and that, and at the end - runs. I would be grateful for any information on choosing a bet. It's just that my understanding is still chaotic, I would like to follow the choice of bet in a more structured way.

 

just use soxfan style. That shoe only loses 2 and 1/2 units net. But wins about 55% strike rate ITLR.

 

When we as players think of dominance, we often think of it in terms of Banker or Player.

So.....

B
B
B
B
P
B
P
B
B
B

or

P
P
B
P
P
B
P
P
P

You can obviously even have a dominant chop sequence... PBPBPBBPBPBPPBPB

But not many people seem to mention a dominant 2's scenario.

Looking at the shoe PersonS presented above and specifically looking at the first 25 hands.

P
B
B (and so a double B here)
P win
B loss (single)
B win
P win
P win
B win
B win
B loss (single)
P win
P win
B win
B win
P win
B loss (single)
B win
P win
B loss (single)
B win
P win
P win
P loss
P loss (and so a double loss here and the dominance is over)

A very nice W/L registry there of W L WWWWW L WWWWW L WW L WWW LL

You will actually see this type of dominance prevail more than BBBBBB or PPPPPP or PBPBPB and the maths backs it up and therefore it's a good play to have and to look out for.

cheers

 

Thank you very much for the examples.
I haven't figured out the socks style yet. He often mentions the frequency of the series, 4s is the limit, but if you are content with playing only up to this length, then longer series still cause damage. I tried this in roulette...
It seems easy to see the beginning of the flow and determine the bet.
There will be 6 types of introduction:
PBP
BPB
PP
BB
PBB
BPP. The first 2 can be read in different ways - these are either chops.Or P/B dominance. Maybe a bit cheeky, but which would you rather play? Play for cutting or dominance. The other 4 intros are still more inclined to form 2. So they seem easier to handle.

 

If I see BPB or PBP at the beginning of a shoe, it's not really what I am looking for the way that I frame things. Like you say, is it a dominance or chops?

Now if you were looking at it with an extra stream and let's say the S (same) and D (difference) then you are going to get....

P
B D
P D

or

B
P D
B D

So you could argue that D is the dominant one there. So on balance and if I am going to bet, I am probably going for the chop to continue and hope the D continues in the second stream.

It's probably an important thing to remember that you don't have to bet every hand or a situation where you might feel that you haven't gathered enough information to make what you consider an informed choice.