Baccarat Million Dollar Baccarat seminar

I got this system someplace. Can't seem to locate it amongst the rest of the stuff I have. If I find it I will post it. If you have it, CPS, go ahead and post if. Send it to me and I will if you don't want to.

I'm pretty sure the 124 is a neg prog. Having trouble remembering this method.

J

 

How should I send it to you Jim?

 

I have been researching MDB for the last few days and I have a question. It mentions that after two two's (PPorBB) the next two's will go to three PPP or BBB. Does this mean ANY two's after PP OR BB or is it the two immediately after? Ex:
1. BB PP BB now bet third B or can it be
2. BB PP B P B PP bet on third B

My guess is 1. Thanks in advance for the help.

 

"The 2 events can be back to back (consecutive) such as a 22 or a 33 or a 44
OR they can be split apart such as a 212, a 3113 or a 4214"

The answer appears to be "2" above. Take the 4214 example he gives. This is going to be less common because many shoes have few or no 4's but if your trigger is 4 then anytime you see that third 4 in a shoe that will be a trigger to bet 4>5. At least that's my understanding.

J

 

Thank you sir. You are always helpful.

 

I hope you tell us what your take is on this method since you are studying it. I never really looked at it too deeply though I always liked how he had weighted averages against the shoes average run lengths to help determine the bias. Works well when a game is consistent for a long enough time to make a profit. The switches always the difficulty.

How many bets per shoe do you think you are getting using the triggers he outlines?

Thanks.

 

The best has been +7 and the worst was -4. I would guess my average would be about +2. Its a grind you only get about 6-10 chances to bet. It looks safe so I'll continue. It's all about how much you lose not your wins.

Mark

 

Yup, all about reducing losses. The wins take care of themselves. It takes a lot of games to figure whether the method is worthwhile with only about 8 bets a shoe average. Assuming the method wins itlr got to consider variance and time plus unit size to make it worthwhile. All depends on shoe win % and variance. If win % is high (80% or more) the variance shouldn't be too bad to play a few sessions. Otherwise we can expect hours, days or even weeks to be in the red before a profit kicks in.

 

i never liked online casino, the horror stories of people getting scammed cheated by the house or the process of cash out is beyond retarded, i guess im just old fashion B+M casinos

 

You can add math and probability to the MDB+
I was a member of Beat The Casino and got this method.

Now I am too clever to spend 50 Euro a month on things I can develop my self, guess what I did!
I buy sport tips for half the price and make over 50 Euro profit each month on sports.

Then I realize that I should get a wider spectrum as a gambler and start to learn and buy material about sports trading.
So now I make money with both sports services and my own trading.

Money in and money out - what I prefer is money in and not out - simple as that.

Now get back to a history lesson and Marigny De Grilleau ...

You can use the following playing models and count the balance and imbalance using STDV
And yes I will share some discoveries I made.

I get back to this topic later this evening or tomorrow and will show the math and probability behind the MDB+ and what kind of expectation you can have ...

Cheers

 

Forgot to say HI to Jimske

 

And Hello Asymbac ...

 

I took Sputnik's march and use the same betting schema as MDB - the difference is that I have a 66% probability to hit once within three attempts.
I don't know but I test this with today's random org file ...

And it looks damn good ...

LW LW W W W LW LLL W W W LLL W W LW W W W W W LW LLW LW W LW

Cheers

 

there is no system

 

What w/o mean? Is this system still available anywhere for sale?

 

What seems to be lacking from all these discussions on baccarat is any mention whatsoever of probabilities. In every single professional gambling circle I have circled the FIRST thing one does is figure out the probabilities. Then (and only then) you calculate your return, based on: payout x probability.

Return = Payout x Probability

In the world of baccarat I never see this, not once, not ever.

The math for American Baccarat is well known: (This is copied from Wikipedia)
Player Win. In Baccarat, the Banker's hand will win 45.8% of the time, slightly higher than the Player's hand at 44.6%. Ties win 9.6% of the time. When factoring out the tie, the Banker's hand wins about 51 percent of the time.

Lastly ALL DECISIONS about whether or not you are playing "with an edge" are calculated prior to playing and are irrespective to your results.

And you must be able to show work...

 

Here's a copy of Binomial Distribution to use. If you can plug your numbers in here and show why the probabilities are what you say they are. Then you'll have system that works...

 

Get with the program. You can lose the correct number of decisions based on correct probability if you can get the timing right on when to fund and when not to fund a selection.

You / we need to see if this is true or not. Is it possible to not fund a losing streak? Because if it is then "variable change" then becomes a new and proven statistical advantage. Let's make sure that you know what "variable change" means first:

 

Yes I wrote a whole article on the Monty Hall Paradox. In order for that to apply to Baccarat one needs to have more or different information.

The disconnect between baccarat players like yourself and those of us from other branches of the professional gambling would seem to be on what actually constitutes "more or different information". Results during play don't count to us as they are random independent events. (unless you are counting cards)

It's been my experience that this disconnect is unfix-able and intractable.

We simply aren't going to agree. Trust me, I've had this same exact discussion before to no avail. It never ends well.

Take care, and be well.

 

Yes, very wise. It all comes down to the definition of different information.

So Let's drop all this odds crap for now. So at times when I'm in a casino gambling at Roulette, a game I'm not supposed to be able to win, I hit a very strong win streak. Every time that happens the pit boss comes over and stands over my table and watches the action. He always knows when a win streak is happening.

I also know every time a losing streak is happening, either to me or other players at the table. I consider this ability to be the gathering of information. So regardless of the probability, if it applies or not, is it possible to bet less during a losing streak and more during a winning streak? Is there a math that prevents this?