Baccarat Stetson Bailey

A great read. I hope some enjoy it. Bailey believed (as I do) that it is impossible to find a bet selection that will win more hands than lose and overcame the juice.

 

We have tested this style , will not advise anyone to use it for real cake. Although, never busted 5000 unit bankroll, but witness -3000+ plus in one approach, and -4000+ in the original Bailey style of ppbbppbb. Also witness -3000+ using Soxfan style. In my testing, there were also a lot of -1000+.
Because of all this adverticities, I decided not to use it for real cake.
However,I have an approach to it that seems to show great potential but with limited bankroll.
The Stetson Bailey is one of the most interesting strategies for people with mean heart.Soxfan does not advise using it.
There is also Reverse Stetson Bailey fool proof which is extremely boring and stressful to test .I wish someone like lemonade can help run the test using 5000 unit bankroll and a take profit of 1 unit high instead of 5000 unit.

 

The best recommendation for any testing with results even universes close to those levels would be to dial 911 or 411, ask for the crew from Aliens, and nuke it with fire. GAME OVER MAN.

 

Đúng là anh ngu, không ai có thể làm phá sản 5000 đơn vị vốn, chỉ có những người say rượu. Còn những người thích khám phá cách sử dụng đơn vị để giải quyết vấn đề

 

So everyone is clear... what he said. Nobody with a $10 USD unit size is going underwater $50,000 USD types except Donald and Elon with The Art of the Deal and multidimensional chess styles of baccarat hey! hey!

 

Vâng, không ai có thể phá sản 5000 đơn vị vốn, chỉ có những người say rượu. Còn đối với những người thích khám phá việc sử dụng các đơn vị như một cách để giải quyết vấn đề
[TRÍCH DẪN="Mars, bài đăng: 182182, thành viên: 13204"]Vậy là mọi người đều hiểu rõ... những gì anh ấy nói. Không ai có đơn vị 10 đô la Mỹ lại đi dưới mức 50.000 đô la Mỹ ngoại trừ Donald và Elon với Nghệ thuật đàm phán và các phong cách chơi cờ đa chiều của baccarat hey! hey![/TRÍCH DẪN]
có lẽ là sox fan

 

may be sox f,an

 

Bailey used Foolproof to show there's a fixed bet selection (style) that can theoretically win but never intended it to be more than an exercise due to table limits and bankroll requirements.

bbpp (xxyy) there is no "style" that overcomes HA. Don't need lemonade to test I'm pretty sure he already knows that.

 

[TRÍCH DẪN="Jimske, bài đăng: 182186, thành viên: 34"]Bailey đã sử dụng Foolproof để chỉ ra rằng có một lựa chọn cược cố định (phong cách) về mặt lý thuyết có thể thắng nhưng không bao giờ có ý định biến nó thành một bài tập thực sự do giới hạn của bàn chơi và yêu cầu về số tiền cược.

bbpp (xxyy) không có "phong cách" nào có thể vượt qua HA. Không cần nước chanh để thử nghiệm Tôi khá chắc là anh ấy đã biết điều đó rồi.[/QUOTE]what is HA ?

 

The idea behind xxyy is to minimize the impact of loosing streak. I have witnessed a loosing streak of 17 loose in a row . Imagine if your are already in a hole and you experience this, most likely, it will result in the burst of your bankroll. Xxyy smoothen the down curve and make you stay longer.
The best approach is to use a limit, as accept what ever draw down that occurs and restart.
I have been using this for some cake where some wager are virtual.

 

xxyy can be deformed to xxyyy ? xxyyyxy string is quite common

 

chop or xyxy pattern is not difficult but the idea of losing a few thousand units is stupid, soxfan guy

 

17 losses in a row will happen no matter what you do. Since B wins more than P in commission baccarat, the longest losing streak will always be a string of P's. The shortest losing streak will always be a string of B's. In the long run.

 

yeah but we don't bet on it, there's no way we'd bet on that stupid losing streak

 

The point is that you will have 17 losses in a row no matter how you bet. You cannot avoid it if you play long enough.

 

That is a funny answer for drunks and people who like to chase games without a plan. If I lose a streak of 3 I leave and pick another game in my game portfolio and that 17 losing streak doesn't happen. When playing online there are players who only bet on a tie because their bankroll allows it and I have never seen them lose.

 

19 streak witness some time ago.hey hey.

 

It doesn't really matter, different game, different strategy, different day. Look at your last 17 wagers. All of those could have gone against you. It's called variance and you will see it one day if you play long enough.

That day you will think, "hmm, I guess fathead was right". Good luck to you. And please don't bet ties. The house edge is over 14%.

 

Actually it's very unlikely but not impossible, by any means.

As long as baccarat shoes are different, only "coincidental factors" will make a same positional pattern to happen by not fitting the slight detectable variance requisites typical of baccarat.
Of course the same coincidental factors could show up by breaking the variance at our favor, yet itlr there is a strong balancement between what should be more probable to happen with what actually happens. Meaning that we should properly take care of short term variance in the exact opposite way recreational players and tourists do.

Basically that translates into wagering very few hands, considering some shoes as unplayable and registering the various results fictionally so to get the possible maximum impact of RTM effect (along with other tools).

Mathematically such claims are just BS, but acute baccarat players are more statistical persons than math persons.

Anyway, thanks for this interesting link.

as.