Baccarat Regressions

Flat bet regressions in particular. Specifically the 2-1-whatever, doesn't matter. The regression is less effective than flat betting. It doesn't matter how cleverly you construct it. Flat betting will out pace it with more units of profit ( or less losses ) in the long run, and it will accumulate much less B tax.

You are really just flat betting several different bet selections of varying amounts. For instance, a 2-1-1-2-2-1-2-3 is actually 8 different bet selections. Or, they will behave no different than 8 separate bet selections. The selections are defined by their placement in the regression. If it was purely flat bet, then the fact that each placement on the regression ladder containing unto itself its own variance, untethered from the decisions before or after, would get lost, camouflaged by a background of identical bets. All of which come out of, and go back into the same chip stack.

If you marry a progression to it. Let's just say we double it after x number of lost units to 4-2-2-4-4-2-4-6. Then, you are raising all of your bets, to cover the losses of just a few of your bets. Engage Gambler's Fallacy, and you end up getting nowhere, because you will win the placements you lost the first time, and lose the placements you won the first time. 50/50 is 50/50. For every bet in every placement, you will win and lose half of those wagers.

Without a positive expectation to win the first 2u bet, the following 1u bet and its entourage will not overcome those accumulated losses.

Truth tables don't lie.

 

What happened to every hand is INDIVIDUAL, RANDOM & THE HOUSE EDGE?
It's about HOW the situation plays out. If your wins are chopping , regression benefits the most.

 

Yeah, that's me asking the same question basically. More in an indirect rhetorical manner. More like an agitator if I'm being honest.

How do you know your wins are chopping? Oh that's right, you are a disciple of Gizmotron and reading randomness, ( this is me being provocative ). Try using some of that logic you keep banging on about. If your wins are chopping, then why the 1u bet? Why the 2u bet? Why not your life savings if you can guess with positive expectation when you will win after a loss and lose after a win?

Didn't you say the Kelly Criterion was the best MM with a Players Advantage? How would that not apply here? or anywhere an individual was able produce an area where they enjoy positive expectation.

BTW the Kelly Criterion is a terrible MM strategy. I can find no relationship between the percentage of Positive expectation and the percentage of a remaining BR. Without addressing standard deviation, Kelly Criterion only guarantees a BR bust.

 

The reasoning I gave you is specifically cater to when regression is good because that is the topic you wanted to discuss. Shoe results comes in all shapes and sizes and there is no one size fits all. Mr Kelly of Kelly Criterion stressed that his findings only apply to things with positive expectations. It is the people who tried to apply it to gambling. It's all about having more
s-t-r-e-t-c-h for your bankroll.
Playing Baccarat is like tracing your approach to the on going shoe. Is it compatible for a win or not compatible for a loss. One more thing, if things are not going right and you try to flip, you may be right and that is called a comeback. But sometimes it may flip with you slapping you left and right.

 

First of all I was wrong about the Kelly Criterion. I don't know why I dislike that method so much. After I wrote it, it stuck in my head, and I was like "... well fudge, that's not accurate... let my personal bias interfere with my evaluation, or lack thereof..." Hell, I might be 100% wrong about it. But let's be clear, it is unbustable, deviation might whittle it down to a unit below the table minimum. You can't get to the North Pole if you only travel half the remaining distance every day. Same thing with the BR, if you only bet 10% of what remains of it, you will never lose all of it.

And "the reasoning you gave me specifically to cater to a regression" is rejected by me. You know, disputed is a better word, let's use that. Less offensive.

Just as you said, sometimes you change your bet selection to the opposite, and you win, and sometimes you change it and you get slapped in the face. Guess what percentage of times changing your bet selection works, and what percentage of times it does not? ( It's 50%)

So half the time it looks like it works, but the other half of the time it does not. This isn't the issue. The issue is regressing your bets when things are going good. You are shorting yourself accumulated units, that you would hope ( at the very best ) to recover those lost units during a choppy win loss period, however they will not, cannot, overcome all of the 2u losses you accumulated when things are going bad.

Your win streaks are shorter than your losing streaks, cutting short the space you need to build your bet back up from a regression, plumb passed the value of your base bet, into a bet greater than 2u that wins long enough to overcome those missed units before it loses.
You will not only have more but also have longer losing streaks than you have wlwlwlwl streaks.

Unless you have an area of positive expectation, or somehow find the holy grail of bet selections that reliably produces more wlwlwlwl streaks than it is statistically supposed to, a regression will cause you more losses than flat betting.
Will you dine with me at the table of truth?

Baccaritic

 

Just like you say. Regressing your bets are never good or bad. I never liked regressing bets myself. It's a move for those people who is too afraid to lose IMO. However if I took a chance and made an unusual larger bets and after winning it, I would naturally try to protect it by regressing a little. But to put regression in a die hard type of approach never occurs to me. The problem is NOT the regress part. When you regress, you had no choice but to make the 1st bet a bit substantial and that is where I don't like. What if I lose the bet?
I prefer grinding a unit a time for a few units and select a place to put ALL IN those winnings. I used to do that in my youthful days and there were some BIG wins along the way. Now I abandon all thoughts of winning big because Humans are vulnerable. It is never good after greed sets in.

 

What about a positive progression when winning two times in a row:

1-1-3

WLWLWL = -1

WWW = +5

WWL = -1

 

You misunderstand. I am saying regressing your bets are NEVER good, in the setting of a specific MM strategy. Randomly making a 15u bet when you are ahead or behind, and then going back to your normal betting unit isn't what I am addressing.

If you flat bet a selection through 1000 win streaks and 1000 loss streaks you will be ahead more units in profit, or behind less units in losses than if you apply a regression.

2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2 out performs 2-1-1-2-2-2-3-3, it out performs 2-1-1-2-3-4-5-6, it out performs 1-1-2-2-3-3-4-4.

It out performs 2-1-whatever.

Marry it to a set of truth tables, and maybe we can finally bury this thing behind the shed where it belongs.

Baccaritic

 

I've often thought, if one was going to play a negative 1-2-4 progression, losing 7 units every time you encounter 3 LIAR, than you must play a positive 1-2-4 progression with it, winning 7 units every time you encounter the corresponding 3 WIAR.
Except, you will not win half your bets without an area of positive expectation in an environment of less than even chances. There isn't going to be a corresponding 3 WIAR every time. You will lose 3 in a row just a little more often than you win 3 in a row. WLWLWL streaks won't appear as often as they should, they will periodically be interrupted by an extra L. Similar to how a Banker single interrupts Player streaks.
1-2-4, or 1-1-3 will behave the same way. You will slowly lose ground missing that final 3rd win just a wee bit more often than you are supposed to. It isn't really even chances, never has been.
Probably not what you wanted to hear. But it is the truth, no way around it.

Sometimes, the thought that there are no such things as positive progressions passes across my mind. No such thing as gambling with the casinos money. Increasing your bet by any amount in a negative expectation environment is a negative progression. I can see no definable difference between increasing your bet after win, or after a loss to overcome past, present or future losses.

Baccaritic

 

This, you can only speak for yourself and not the REAL Baccarat stats where everything is deemed level and even. Bet Selection OR Bet Amount always can come out right or wrong. So when you described a certain situation, there will be a situation that is the complete opposite. That is why I never say doing this is better than doing that in the long run. The only difference is certain things in Baccarat would allow you to have options whereas certain situations gave you none but there will always be a trade-off. It all comes back to the Odds which is the Law and will never change UNLESS you cheat.
If you only looked at the records and findings that you have, you are totally right in saying whatever imbalances that you found. That is the reason why ALL methods tested with a TRUE computer Baccarat program with gave you a NEGATIVE result in the end. That's the meaning of -EV. You can come out with a 50 hand Banker in a row and test it and it will come out winner until that shoe of 50 Banker in a row to finally make you a loser in the long run. The only argument is you somehow, avoided the 50 B in a row. But in real play, there is NO situation to avoid because of 2 things. THE BETTING LIMITS and the HOUSE EDGE.
Oops! I am beginning to sound like JBS with explanation though.

 

Again , all I can say is you are in your own right because NO one will be affected by the COMPLETE stats that impact your findings. Your 'destiny' is different than mine. Can you say you will DEFINITELY see more 10 B's IAR more than me after we go through 100 shoes at different time and place? That is the reason I always do HOMEWORK for bet selection going through my records only and NOT anything else. This is totally fallacy but I am in control of my own destiny and not some consensus findings.

 

You continue to misunderstand. It IS THE REAL BACCARAT STATS.
Stop, read it again. I know you can understand it, you just refuse too, this is a second or third language isnt it? Maybe this is friendly fire? I'm telling you NEGATIVE EV is what destroys a regression. NEGATIVE EV is what makes a regression lose more than flat betting.

Baccaritic

 

We are getting somewhere maybe. Take a look out your window and let me show you that I have seen very nearly the exact same number of 10B's IAR that you have. That I have seen nearly the exact same number of 10B's IAR than any and every other person from any random set of 100 shoes from anywhere in the world from any time in history has. That is how probability works, it is the very thing you time your bet selection with.

DEFINITELY

I did not address your 'destiny'. This has nothing to do with what you erroneously refer to as 'destiny'. Not your first language I know. It was a real effort trying to cipher what you meant, but I know exactly what you are doing. And I mean exactly, and I can explain it better than you. Let me rephrase, I can explain that better for you. It'll help in the future, when trying to communicate your method to others that do not share your home tongue. 'Course, all I can think of is that "no good deed goes unpunished" and it's quite an effort, likely dismissed. Nobody likes their method to be understood, everyone wants to be the teacher. It is a strong human predisposition. I suffer from it no less.

Baccaritic

 

First thing first. Simple question based on your post.
Are you saying getting 3 bets Wrong in a row is more than getting 3 bets Right in a row?
You have exploited this flaw ? The flaw of 3 wins in a wrong will be interrupted by an extra L more than 3 losses interrupted with an extra W?
True, of course with your findings and not mine. Peace!

 

Correct. There are more occurrences of 3 Wrong Bets than 3 Right bets.
No, I haven't exploited this flaw. Haven't really tried to. Not sure it is really a flaw, as it is part of the game design.
It isn't "my" findings. It is everyone's findings everywhere every time.

So let's pause right here. In Roulette, black/red, high/low, even/odd all share the same probability. Which is 18 wins for every 20 losses. You can see right here, if we break this down into groups of 3 their are 8 permutations. You are familiar with this break down. We got two extra losses to contend with for every 18 wins. They do not go into 8 permutations equally. Those extra losses will create more LLL columns than corresponding WWW columns.

If you record Black and Red and ignore the 0,00. You will get a perfect distribution of Black and Red, but those aren't wins and losses.

It is a little tricky with Baccarat because Banker appears more often than player. A rough estimate is Banker wins 39 bets for every 37 Player wins. Put those numbers into groups of 3 permutations and there will be more columns of BBB than of PPP.
If you just bet P, you will hit more PPB's. If you just bet B, you will see more BBB's, but commission will insure the casino makes the profit, not you.

Baccaritic

 

Simple solution is to bet the your winning until certain level, maybe 2-3 times then reset. This way you won't lose your BR after a win.

Flat betting won't make your BS better....

 

So bet the opposite of whatever you normally choose = winner winner chicken dinner?

 

I'm not sure what you mean about winning until a certain level, and losing my BR after a win. You will have to clarify.

I'm not saying flat betting will make your Bet Selection better. I'm saying flat betting ANY bet selection will out perform any kind of reduction in unit size, followed by any combination increases in unit size.

Baccaritic

 

LOL you know that doesn't work.

 

Man, I'm just trying to save people some units lost to regressions. Specifically, 2-1-1-2-2-3-3 and any other kind of planned regress after a flat bet win. One is better off flat betting until a pre determined number of losses and then building a strategic plan to increase unit size and recover flat betting at a larger unit size.