Baccarat 1K to 30K Challange 2019

Joey Torres, you would understand everything if you had read the topic.
Now I will post real money sessions from FortuneJack - Auto Roulette Wheel & La Partage -

This evening session starts with six losses in a row.
Then I wait for a fictive win and start betting again.

This was what I mention above, some days you win a fortune and other days you stay at recovery mode.

This is the results.

W LL LL LL
-14 Units
First level progression 1 1 2 2 4 4

W
fictive win

WLLWLWW
+6 Units
Second level progression 2 2 4 4 8 8

LL WW
+4 Units
Second level progression 2 2 4 4 8 8

WW
+4 Units
Second level progression 2 2 4 4 8 8

I made a mistake during this session and would not have lost six attempts.
The sequence starts with a win and six losses that would be five losses as I won the first bet.
After that comes two wins, but I was staking 11 22 44 focusing on loses and not he win/loss ratio.
The same issue did I have with the +6 unit profit sequence.

Not bad that three attacks recoup six loses.
That has to be the power behind four level progression.

 

Hello I have Dr Tom Baccarat Home and Study and Hybrid system
I buy all of them around $3300
Can anyone help me to trade it?
WA [removed]

 

What are you trying to trade it for a single Tampax?

 

Are these any good? I have "Martingale Mastery" by Ständig Doppelwetten but it's worth more than $3k. That guy is constantly doubling the price.

 

Of course it's worth it all winning systems have to be very expensive because the author doesn't Gamble and spend this time in the casino making billions he has to make the money by selling the book that he wrote so others can make multi-millions of course

 

I will not talk about selections, because they are just odds and probability.
But I will give a hint of how math can explain the likelihood for something to happen.

You can concentrate your efforts on loses and wins, it explains the variance and fluctuation.
I attach a Z-Score sheet that you can experiment with.

Now let's talk about his method four level progression with six attempts for each level.

Six loses has 98.5% probability not to happen and a likelihood of 1.5% to happen.
Looks great, but is not a rare event, is pretty common.

The Z-Score is 2.48

LL LL LL

Assume we would wait for a fictive win after each sequence of six losses.
Then the minimum Z-Score would be 2.07 or higher.

This is pretty common, but two sequences with six losses or more after each other are rarer than common.

LL LL LL W LL LL LL

The Z-Score is 3.22

It happens but is not a common event.
This would be two levels of the four levels.

LL LL LL W LL LL LL W LL LL LL

The Z-Score is 3.83

This happens, but very seldom.

LL LL LL W LL LL LL W LL LL LL W LL LL LL

The Z-Score is 4.35

This happens but can take several months before you experience such sequence.
One person code the worst after several million simulated trails and the worst was a Z-Score of 5.59
Just to give you a reference point to relate to the values of Z-Score.

All good except one that this is when one direct losing sequence appears during play.
You can get a bumpy ride where loses chop and stay ahead without two wins in a row.
But the likelihood is that variance will produce two wins after each other.

My personal opinion and the way I do things.
I like to stay within groups of two attempts to create a win, loss/win or two loses.
Because some combination gives you 75% probability to win at least once within two attempts.
They seem to chop and create clustering sequences with two in a row more frequent than any other combinations I have tested.

I could not Attach Z-Score Sheet, because the site does not allow that kind of file.

Cheers

 

LOL, I belong to BTC and i specialty remember how the pros @BTC kind of chased you away with your class room professorship, LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

 

John, they did not force me to leave and I can exactly explain why and when I stop my membership.
My speciality is NOR as I have developed a similar method without having knowledge about NOR existence.

Made some posts and read some topics and download some files and made some connection with some of the members of BTC in the private area.
Exchange some ideas and then I did not feel it was worth it, the monthly fee.

Maybe you play for a living and 50$ a month is nothing for you or maybe you have free membership.
But I rather spend 600$ a year on something else, my opinion.

I just don't feel or agree that I have been chased away.

Cheers

 

From what I read and understand you were you just don't want to understand it

 

I posted this under anther thread as well but I though it would be helpful to post it here since we are speaking of LIAR. Unfortunately it was done before NOR came out. Some of you coders might want to compare with other selections.

 

I use the ECART/STDV/Z-SCORE to explain the variance and fluctuation.
The horizontal line explains the underrepresented event.
The vertical line explains the overrepresented event.

Cheers

 

Then, for example, the horizontal shows the repeat length and the vertical the Z score the expected occurrences? ??

 

Yeah charting charted charted at the table lol. !!!,,,,!!!!!!

and you bet once or twice you lose, or you do worse is same as all the other Misfits at the table get off the board and play once in awhile seriously!!!!!!!!!!!!lol!!!!!

 

Jimske I will give you an excel file, with the Z-Score for baccarat.

Let me explain, you can measuring singles versus series and series versus singles.
You can be measuring red versus black or black versus red.
You can be measuring loses versus wins and wins versus losses.

For example, if I have 14 wins and 2 loses then I have a very high win ratio reaching 3.0 STDV/Z-Score
Can also be 14 loses and 2 wins describing a bad sequence.

So the overrepresented events or outcomes or loses or wins can be anything you want.
Same for underrepresented events.

You can use this knowledge to take advantage of regression towards the mean.
Or you can use this knowledge to take advantage of a sequence to grow stronger.

For example, if you have six singles and one series your expectation can be that you will receive at least two more series among the next coming six events. If not then you reach a 2.5 STDV because 12 versus 2 is 2.5 STDV or higher if you don't get any more series to show.

Assume that is your benchmark and you staking 1 1 1 1 2 3 and win a couple of times before you get a sequence of 2.5 with no regression.
That staking allows you to win twice within six attempts.
Let's say you lose and there is no regression and you get a back to back result, then you can staking 2 2 2 2 4 6.
And again way over 3.0 STDV, you can be staking 4 4 4 4 8 12

Now you might not want to test regression after a predetermine sequence betting against a benchmark or value.
Maybe you want to bet that the STDV will grow stronger.
For example six singles and one series, then if you get two more series without a win before that you have regression and the 2.5 STDV drop to 2.05. That requires a different staking plan.

Now you can look at loses and sequences of loses in the same way and make assumptions when the next win will come.
Do you put your money on sequences to grow stronger or do you put your money where sequences reach regression after a certain situation?

This is a little different then bet selections and trigger as we know them, this is based upon math, odds and probability, the likelihood for something to happen.
Is a great way to learn how to read different events and how variance behaves during different situations with different predetermined ways to attack the game.

Cheers

 

This file is activated for 30 days - Z-Score file

https://ufile.io/71jvp

Cheers

 

The French word for STDV is Ecart

First, you have to get the Absolute Ecart when you calculate.
So let's assume you have a sequence with 14 series alternating with two singles present.

Then you take 14 - 2 = 12

Now we want to get the statistical Ecart so we continue with...

14 + 2 = 16

Now we take the sqrt of 16 = 4

And finally, we divide the absolute Ecart whit the sqrt

12 sqr 4 = 3,00

The Statistical Ecart 3,00

 

Playing models and an example using Z-Score ...

This is the values and existing playing models based on pure math and probability.
This is how you find your windows of bias or overrepresented events and underrepresented events.

Series contra Singles.
Series has the value of 1 and Singles has the value of 1.
There is as many singles as existing series no matter length.

Singles contra series.
Singles has the value of 1 and Series has the value of 1.
there's is as many singles as existing series no matter length.

Singles contra larger series.
Singles has the value of 1
Series of two has the value of 0
Series of three has the value of 1
Series of four has the value of 2
Series of five has the value of 3
Series of six has the value of 4
And so it continues

Series of two contra larger series.
Singles has the value of 0 (you just skip them as none existing)
Series of two has the value of 1
Series of three has the value of 0
Series of four has the value of 1
Series of five has the value of 2
Series of six has the value of 3
Series of seven has the value of 4
And so it continues ...

Series of three contra larger series
Singles has the value of 0 (you just skip them as none existing)
Series of two has the value of 0 (you just skip them as none existing)
Series of three has the value of 1
Series of four has the value of 0
Series of five has the value of 1
Series of six has the value of 2
Series of seven has the value of 3
Series of eight has the value of 4
And so it continues.

Now to the underlying dimension.
You can divide singles only into singles of singles and series of singles.
And you can divide singles series versus a series of series.

Cheers

 

Theory versus real play!!!! Lol! Show pictures of your casino winnings!!!!!!

 

Sputnik,


WThankshat`s an ECARTE Club ? As being advertised in some European cities .



Thanks .

 

Interesting stuff Sputnik. Gonna take some digesting to plug in a strategy and staking plan. The ultimate goal is to have a defined placement and betting method without having to think a whole lot.

In the meantime since you studied NOR and re-defined it for your own liking: I use what could be construed as NOR type without the count. As McVince pointed out the original count is seriously flawed. I "key" off the singletons in order to determine (guess) the bias as either "R" or "O." Reason is I theorize that it's the singletons that determine the bias. After that I plug in a bet selection that will succeed as long as my guess is correct. I don't use the "N" with OTBL as was originally intended. Instead I simply repeat until lose to a singleton then chop until I lose to a repeat. Of course one can get into lengths of the "O" and "R" which would fit into your stuff above. After that kind of selection the rest is about betting (staking).

I've managed a 53% strike rate over 4000 live bets. But still it's a grind and still one must win more of the bigger bets than smaller ones cumulatively to win. It'd be nice to eliminate the guessing altogether. LOL