Baccarat An Idiot's Guide to Winning at Gambling

An Idiot's Guide to Winning at Gambling

This is a basic breakdown of where winning comes from.

So I'll suggest that you throw out all the controversial ideas that everyone thinks are important to gambling.

1.) No Progressions.

2.) Just fund the streaks that look like they are winning.

3.) No bet selection method.

In the picture below I have 300 spins at a Roulette table with one bet selection flat bet on each spin. Each bet is $90. They are all bet on Red.

All you have to do is see the the big waves. The blind bet on Red only creates these waves. All you have to do is figure out how to target the up movements and not fund the down movements in the graph.



Don't try to fund the mini changes. You can learn to do that.

Now during the huge down slope in this graph, if you were to switch to Black then that section of the session would become an up sloping phase too.

Now you are a gambling expert. This applies to almost all bet selection choices from almost all table games offered by casinos.

Learn what "enough is enough" means to running a successful professional career. That is the secret to being a winner. Anyone can wipe out because of too high of expectations. Get enough each day and you will find that the big waves are far more than enough to get what you need.

Ask yourself what you would need to make each day that you gamble in a year in order to make at least a million dollars each year.

Break it down into number of days played in a year.

Then break down how much you need from each day. I need three net wins in the aggregate to have a successful session win. I play two sessions each day that I gamble. So that makes 6 units won on each day of gambling.

Example:

1,000,000 / 250 --- that's 250 days playing out of 365.

That comes to $4,000 per day.

$4,000 / 6 = $666.66

That comes to $37 for each number bet on when funding the upswings. I wound buy in with $20 chips and round up to $40 per number bet on. In the case of Baccarat it would be $700 per funded bet.

This method implies winning every session. Almost everyone will say that nobody can win every session. You can if you only fund the biggest waves and get out with just a small fraction of the winnings that come from the biggest waves. I have never seen a session that lasted 10 hours never have a large section of an upward phase. This goes back 30 years and possibly more than a million spins played. I gambled for decades at around 10 hours per day. I know these upswings and downswings have very strong indicators if you were to graph them. They are like what a dream would be in a stock market chart.

Now, in one page, you have all the basics to become rich from gambling. All it takes is practice and the imagination to visualize a playing graph from what the casino is currently serving up as chance. If you can't do this then gambling is probably not for you.

 

Thanks for the graph Gizmotron. I can see how these are definitive waves. I would think that if you sat at those tables where you don’t have to be “at the table” so to speak, like the stadium seating roulette, that you could plot these swings and take advantage of them. But playing 300 spins seems tough unless you get to say spin 20-25 here on your graph and it’s upswing time to make your 6 units and go.

 

Ten hours is the worst scenario. Typical is from one to three hours to get 3 net wins and out.

You can visualize it like this: X - - - X - X X - - X X X X - X X X -- X X X X X - X - X X - - - X - - X - - - - X - - - X - - X - - - - - X - - -

Can you see activity and inactivity in this string of text?

You don't need a graph. When you see a cold section for Red you know that it's a hot section for Black.


I chart for 6 unique groups made from 12 sets all at once. So that when one group might be lackluster another might be killing it as an upswing. You don't have that option in games like Craps or Baccarat. You just have to wait way longer for the opportunities.

 

So at the end you’re seeing Black as the better option?

12 sets? I know of three and then you are creating other 18-number sets? I do that by combining streets etc

 

During that huge down phase in the graph, or at the last part in the string of text, yes.

Yep, this is a case where more is more.

Someone here stands between two tables and tracks both table's EC bets. You can do more but at some point it gets tiring. I like to stay cool and unrattled. My tracking is easy for me because I'm use to it.

 

Yes, once you get used to it, it should flow smoothly. Gizmotron - you are a gentleman and a scholar!!

Would like to work more on this with you if you like.

 

yeah, it's a gambling discussion forum.

So let's unpack this so that it can be seen in it's simplest form. It's one trend characteristic based on one bet selection, or at times, the inverse bet selection. All you are doing is searching for when one of two bet selections is in a temporary condition of swarming or streaking in your favor. To me this is done very laid back. You look at the session without too much concern about going up or down much for short moments. So you develop a skill for getting off any combined losing moments and wait for strong winning moments to make up for those fewer losses. It's a kind of rounding out of the general over all flow of the session as you go along.

 

I am going to create a few EC groups and run a test sample of 300 and see where it goes

 

My free to download EC Pro 1.4 with graphs software is here in the software section. It will do 300 spins and 12 sets of EC's in seconds for you. All you have to do is make a bet selection on one of the EC's and enter 300 in the number of spins box. Then press Spin. Once that completes you click on the Graph checkbox. Boom you have it all graphed. You could look at hundreds of these trials in a short time.

 

Thanks Gizmotron. I will take a look at that.

 

gizmotron. how can i contact you in private for to ask few questions?

 

I just tried to send you a private message. Let me know if you got it and that you can send back.

 

Hi Gizmotron

Me too i have some questions for you, if you can pm me it will be very kind from you

 

It seems to me that this is a fantastic strategy that does not work as cool as the author writes. In real life, you will most likely lose your money and never see the big waves. I recommend trying poker, it depends a lot more on your skills and if you train constantly, you will win more often over time and will be in the black. For me, this is definitely better than questionable super strategies.

 

For me all "strategies" are questionable, even mine, but only because I look at everything through the lens of cognitive science.

Live poker is a game that can be beaten by some. It is also a game where no one sits down at a table expecting to lose, and yet all but one do.

As human beings we do not posses the ability to accurately sort though and distinguish between random chance and brilliance when success or failure are in the mix. We cannot help but attribute success to our own efforts.

Not a lesson, just a reminder, from all the sentimentalists in the Twilight Zone