Baccarat Charles Guetting . . .

. . .progression is up as you win (UAYW). I bring it up only to use as an example. Again I'll say these EC games are betting and guessing games. If you have noticed different bet placements will have different metrics even as they ALL produce the same W/L stats over time.

ND mentioned this progression which I assume he likes and maybe uses. He doesn't say but that's par for the course. Point is to be successful at Guetting you got to have a bet structure that tends to win a lot of hands in a row. I hope that's not making the obvious seem profound.

So take two mechanical bet placements. Zig Zag vs. OCONT/FCONT.

Zig Zag just always bets opposite the last (PBPBPB....) Okay? The ONLY way you can get a long win streak is to be on a long chop AND be in sync with it. Half the time you will win a long chop and half the time you will lose to the long chop. OCONT/FCONT just bets repeat until lose to a chop then chop until lose to a repeat. We will win to a long repeat or a long chop. No brainers.

Which wins more? Neither! They both win/lose the same flat bet. But O/F will absolutely will have more WIAR then ZZ. If you were forced to play one or the other which would you play?

The point of this whole thing is to try to match the betting style to the bet placement! In the above both need SUBJECTIVE elements to come out ahead. Whether you use fictive placements or pattern "triggers" ...whatever.

 

Interesting discussion. It involves the use of a progression where up as you go is used as an example. Then it goes to guessing. And it declares that no matter what you do you get the same kind of win / loss stats.

So I add the notion of any dominance. That includes a pattern of ZZ chop or dominance of any form or side of any EC.

I have known for decades that if you are in a dominance of say red numbers or Banks hitting at say 60% to 70% you would do better flat betting by betting red or Bank while it holds up.

Many argue that you can't use conditional awareness because it can't exist. So I ran statistical tests to see if that is true. It's not. If I have a 30 spin stretch of spins where one side of any EC is in dominance then Betting randomly during that stretch of spins under performs against the results of flat betting the dominant side of the EC that is winning more.

For example lets say that 20 blacks and 10 reds made up a stretch of 30 spins. If I just used random against random then it is likely that I would bet around 15 black and 15 red during that stretch. I would lose more bets that way. And that would come down to when the bets were placed too. It could come out fantastic. But it could also kill the bankroll. On the other hand the bets on black all the way thru the dominance could be a form of protective control. You can stop when the dominance concludes.

Progressions are dependent on when they are implemented and when each step is made. Flat betting any dominance is less volatile. So hunting dominance is a kind of trigger hunting method. And as I have been flogging for decades. You can come across a global effect of swarms of dominance streaks. It's pay day if you do.

Now you have my 2 cents.

People don't like to discuss subjective guessing techniques. I never see these discussions go anywhere but in a trashcan of mathematical absolutism. And it's almost always by people that are inexperienced at guessing, situational awareness, and opportunity tactics. They always need a physical advantage as nobody has yet come up with a mathematical advantage other than card counting.

It would be nice to see conditional awareness discussed without that usual "fallacy" argument being chanted like a mantra from drones. Any bets on that?

Just consider this alone. It is believed that all casinos win because they have a mathematical advantage from 1.2% to 5.4%. That is one of the great lies of the world. They make 400% or more at least on their table games. They do it because of fear and human nature of the players. It's in their corporate tax disclosures each year. They must report their true earnings. People are the reason that casinos win. If you adjust your behavior then you can outfox the real problem before it happens. Mathematically you will lose bets at the mathematical expected rate. But you can control when and how much those bets are placed. You can hammer a casino during a hot streak and you can spend like a miser during a cold streak. It just takes awareness.

 

Mark,



Welcome Back.



ND

 

Please re-read or perhaps I wasn't clear.

I wrote: "different bet placements will have different metrics even as they ALL produce the same W/L stats over time." and "The point of this whole thing is to try to match the betting style to the bet placement! In the above both need SUBJECTIVE elements to come out ahead. Whether you use fictive placements or pattern "triggers" ...whatever."

Means objective fixed placements - no subjectivity!

So Giz if you want to speak to dominance based on. . . based on whatever you want, that's up to you. Go ahead and start your own thread and not change this one.

 

Baccarat a game for losers .

 

I was in many of those discussions with ND regarding the "up an pull" technique. And as you say, it's not that easy to figure out a way to get a win streak to target taking the chance to use it with. Even if the sequence is 2, 1, 2, it still has the risk of winning those first bets, where because you let part of the winnings ride you open yourself to the effect of wins over losses in making many first bets or attempts. This method will grind you down just because it is only balanced if you win enough second steps at least. The odds are not in your favor if you use the progression a lot. You call it "Subjective" vs "Objective. " I look at it as finding a balanced approach, and knowing where the progression really balances. You need a certain number of second step and third step wins to make up for all the first step losses that must occur. They should be close to 50 / 50 if you are really good. If you win the second step you are still behind the balance point by 1 unit. It takes two more wins after the first win to make a real difference. I just don't think that it's easy to target three net wins in a row no matter how you structure or engineer it. You are always playing 2 units when you lose against 1 unit when you win most of the times. You need enough third step wins to break even and balance. So knowing the math from the start allows you to see all three steps objectively. I don't see how guessing can be seen as objective critical thinking. It's always regarding the unknown. I suggest the notion that a starting point must come from a full understanding of the balanced points.

 

Again, my opinion is that this is a betting and guessing game. In that vein we can try to match a bet selection with an appropriate progression to attempt to get the best of it. So that part is static, mechanical. As long as the shoe conforms we are winning.

Example using a Marty since Brokernyc mentioned it. I would use zig zag selection. I'd also know that my nemesis would be being out of sync with the chops. That's where the guessing comes in. If we are out of sync we have to change the placement OR change the progression. I like to do both. If I'm getting too deep because my stuff is not working I like to guess a different selection AND reduce or "dumb down" the progression by dropping back the unit size to a more acceptable level. That way if I lose I'm not at a point of no return. If I win then I have reduced my losses to an acceptable level.

I always keep a W/L registry because I know that I will win about half my bets no matter what. As long as I keep the neg variance at an acceptable loss I know I am "owed" a lot of wins. So the guess part comes in when we know what our selection conforms to. When we get a couple wins, fictive or not, we try again to reduce the loss, get back to even or win.

I've already documented about 4000 LIVE bets with a 53% win rate. Caveat: occasionally I will win more bets than lose in a shoe and STILL lose that shoe. So that's example of losing, dropping back and hitting some good wins but not getting back to even.

I'm not saying it's easy. But that's how I do it. I[d love to have a no brainier mechanical non-guessing method that wins more than loses but I don't know of one.

I had a friend run Assymbac Unbeatable #1 using the B bet off the P single and also double and it does NOT win more than lose.
***************
I'll try to give some specific example shoes when I get time. . . no I always got time . . .when I feel like it. LOL

 

Just on the subject of Guetting, I read a book around 18 months ago and here is what the author had to say....

''Charles Guetting achieved the cornerstone of a large fortune during his years in Monte Carlo. Guetting played exclusively Trent-et-Quarante, but his betting system may be used in betting any equal payment chances. The published Guetting was corrupted, but restoration was simple.
The 'deleted' instruction that destroyed the effectiveness of the system is that all winning first bets at any level are parlayed. Without doubt, this was the way Charles Guetting bet the system. The foundations of a large fortune can be built, just as reported.''

Now all that can be taken with a pinch of salt I suppose but at least it can be tested to see if there is any difference.

 

I'm so happy that you are at this stage. You want to be an enemy. And so seeing you in this stage is really good for me. Fail, flail, and do not spindle or mutilate. You are going to lose more than you win most of the time. Control freak tactics won't help either. What's truly funny is that you already pointed out what works for you but for some reason you want something brainless to make it all easy. Ha Ha, you are stuck with blinders on. Good.

I have nothing to say to you. Keep using a magical progression. Keep looking for the best times to use it. Good luck with that.

 

With great pleasure and consideration for their posts I have given likes to EUGENE Gizmotron .


Nathan Detroit aka WASHOO2

 

Interesting. I didn't know that.

 

You're upset so you can only attack and make fun. Okay whatever. You got a problem. One day you're quitting, the next you're telling all, then you're quitting again, now you're back . . . what is it? Not getting enough fame on the boards?

Look. I don't play Roulette. So other than a quick glance at your posts I don't pay much attention. Maybe you got the HG and are pissed because people aren't knocking on your door sending you 3k for mentorship? Who knows? So go ahead and contribute.

There's lots of ways to play the game. It's my opinion that it is essentially a guessing game with betting, MM, and some structure to keep from going down the rabbit hole. I really don't like playing that much anymore. It's a boring game! And I don't need the money. I write things of interest to me with hopes that someone will get something out of it. That's all.

The game always evolves. It can be a lot of work sometimes and it's a struggle to win often enough. So if you and others have an easy time of it then God Bless! And forgive me for thinking that's a lot of bull s h i t. So we try to make it easier . . .hopefully. Anyway that striving makes it less boring.

Lugi got me thinking about LIAR again. So I've been fooling with changing my bet placements just a bit. Actually reducing number of bets per shoe. Lots of people like Assym says I bet too much. I usually make a lot of bets in the shoe. So I been practicing cutting out some of my normal bets and highlighting others. Seems to be working out in practice. I went to play a shoe today to see how it worked out. Okay, it was NOT a difficult shoe for me at any rate so I get that. P3312121213211121312121332112 But I will win streaky shoes as well. It's about consistency IMO. So I get WLWWLLLWWWWLWWLWLWWLLWLWLWLLLWWWLWWLWWWWLLL and quit at the last 3LIAR. W24 L18. Pretty good even FB but I get 24 units net. That's a 57% WR. I'll just add that to my stat sheet if you don't mind.

Sorry this is so long. I hate long posts. Thanks for listening.