Baccarat Anthropomorphizing the Game

Anthropomorphize (wondering how to pronounce, click here https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anthropomorphize)

"To attribute human characteristic, expectation, superstitions to innate pieces of plastic devoid of any intelligence, basically were none of the former exists". Some may call it gamblers fallacy.

How does apply to gambling, in particularly the game of Baccarat?

Examples of such; Trending, Following or inventing Patterns. Following Natural scores, attributing logic to face value of cards, or anything that exists in your head at any given moment of time that has zero logic.

Take a six deck Baccarat shoe, which will produce approx. 4 sets of 12 results and suppose your betting for example "Equilibrium vs Imbalance". Yet each 12 hand segment of the shoe results in Equilibrium, therefore you lose every bet while mentally your expectation is increases.

So you're left bewildered and stunned, then the realisation may dawn on you, "THE CARDS NEITHER KNOW NOR DO THEY CARE", they have no awareness of Equilibrium v's Imbalanced, patterns, trends, streak frequencies, what is expected, the norm, what they are supposed to conform to.


The same applies to a myriad of bet selections, some of which I have used personally, but do they make sense? These would include but not limited to;

"Birthday Paradox", is it more likely a group of 4 pairs are supposed to produce a repeating pair more often than 4 different pairs?

"Symmetrical Patterns", do the cards know when a portion of a shoe is reverse mirroring itself. Pattern within templates.

"Streak lengths expectation", 'Anti-Streak' or Expected Streak Frequency for a given shoe.

I’m well adversed playing these type of bet selections, when they work we feel good, smart, yet there is the flip side, those times when they don't conform to expectation. Then (impact is even more pronounced after a few successful sessions), we can be left confused, hugely disappointed. They literally make no sense (the cards don't know), are they worth spending time on or even contemplate playing?

Certainly over the years I've dabbled with Equilibrium v's ImBal, I've encountered the best and worst of it, to the point that now, I wait for it to lose first, a prior losing grid, prior to taking that particular bet option.

"Birthday Paradox" is another prime example (travelled down that road extensively). The person who shared that bet option was wrong to suggest it had a mathematical edge, it doesn't, it resolves to a 50% state, just like everything else.


If we strip away all these anthropomorphize options, what do we have left?

Certainly "pattern capturing" and/or "pattern avoidance", have their merits. Knowing that you will win, within a series of bets against ‘xyz’ and will only lose against ‘zyx’ 'in advance'. The so called standard bet selections offer alternative options, 'FLD, DBL, OLD, Zz, Dbl-Zz' etc, again we know in advance what we will win and lose against, no anthropomorphize ambiguity involved.

Should "player expectation", play a part in the betting strategies we decide to use? Can we improve our game, even if it's just a case of stop kidding ourselves? Should we dispense with this way of thinking altogether? I watch players at the tables, who have no expectation, they simply bet & hope and try and ride things out when thing swing the other way.


Anthropomorphizing the results (placing a human element on prior outcomes were none exists).

It means that EVERY Template / grid bet selection option, "symmetrical patterns" and a few other options are flawed AND without merit. Because you are placing emphasis on prior hands (this is due or shouldn't happen again), thinking that due to the unique way you are recording a shoe, it has significance.

When you spot something, well it might not have existed if you were recording the shoe via a different column template \ grid size or even gazing at the score board. Basically you are humanising the prior outcomes, given the cards have no awareness what you are doing, or how you are recording a shoe, what you are looking for, or waiting upon, nor do they care. It is my opinion such methods are merely gamblers fallacy (I plead as guilty as the rest), sometimes they work and sometimes they don't.

Now compare "Anthropomorphizing" the game to running any standard betting option, they could be a combination of DBL/OLD/FLD/OTBL, Cross over. Betting against streak then jumping on them, or vice-a-versa. Betting one-side only, stopping after X amount of Liar's, there are many options.

All bet options are capable of winning and losing, it shouldn't be so hard to guess right a 50-50 proposition once in a while to re-enforce to deluded logic thinking. Here is the important bit, some bet selections anthropomorphize the results and some do not. Humanizing the results is without logic and is an exercise in futility, gamblers fallacy.


My suggestion is to ask yourself, "am I anthropomorphizing the game", if the answer is yes, then tread wearily, it is without foundation, devoid of logic, based on deluded speculation and expectation, gamblers fallacy. Seek to remove this element from your game and progress forward.

Bet one side only, Pattern Capturing / Pattern Avoidance, Standard options, are prime examples of not Anthropomorphizing the game, nothing is due, nothing is based on prior hands, we simply bet, accept and manage what transpires.

 

Fascinating exposé. I wonder if you would consider these conclusions of my own? I have said that you can use any bet selection technique that is consistent to expose the three primary results from a bet selection technique? Prediction never enters the picture. Wishful thinking is has no power over what happens next. But the results are in fact real information. Your guesses can go into phases of working well at times for short or long duration. I do not think that it is Anthropomorphizing to watch real data as it rolls out. I also don't think that unlike in Baccarat you have one data result, that in Roulette you can monitor 6 streams of results all at once if you chose to monitor them. You can monitor the effectiveness of betting only on one side if that is all you want. Are you saying that phase recognition from real results data is also an attempt to Anthropomorphize for the basis of prediction, wishful thinking.

So I propose this notion to you. What has a greater chance of occurring? You are in a win streak. You are in a chaotic streak. You are in a losing streak. Which of these three streaks has a best chance to continue winning? Will the losing streak suddenly change to a win streak just as you start to bet it? Will the chaos state change to a win streak just as you start to bet on it? Or will you win more times from a continuation of the winning state? Not all win streaks lose on the first time that you monetize a bet on them. If you only attempt to continue one single bet in a win streak then the odds don't change. But if you keep betting on it while it continues then you win more than just one bet's worth.

What do you think about this?

 

Where did you get that quote from? I think you made that up. And gambler's fallacy and anthropomorphizing are two different concepts. The former deals more with human characteristics, particularly personality or consciousness while the later deals more with misunderstanding probabilities.

Sure, many cultures anthropomorphize inanimate objects like rocks or trees or what have you - even god concepts. But Baccarat? LOL. No, trenders recognize bias exists and basically guess that it may continue. It's not a cause and effect thing like you seem to presume.

 

None. I think each event is the same in predicting future events in determining wins or losses. However, if you're on a winning streak, why would you change? On a losing streak, is akin to putting virtual losses in front of a bet selection, chaotic is simply just that. All can continue, all can change in an instance. Personally the way I view and act, is when if I have been observing something repeating for a abnormal amount of time, I bet against the continuance, it's just the way I approach things. Some might like to ride the event, hopefully they have been on it early, because nothing is going to continue.

Anthropomorphizing is placing human characteristics were none exists, be that idols, stones or as I deliberately chose as it is a gambling site, cards, or if you prefer patterns.

 

I thought I would use 200 spins, all bet on Red, to illustrate different conditions.

The first is graph 1 that shows a huge losing streak followed by a monster win streak that then tapers off into chaos:



The second graph shows an over all absence of the chaotic state where short lived domination of win streaks are equally mixed with losing streaks:



And the last graph shows an over all slide downward while having a sort of consistent small uptick along the way: Now these characteristics are not vaporware or mirages. They demonstrate that every ten to twelve hour session has it own characteristics. All this becomes visible with the use of using the same bet, always bet on red. The bet selection causes the real information to occur. The tactic to use is the virtual bet. You bet real money on favorable conditions and you hold off when downturns occur. I'm saying that you can see and know changes. At no time are they considered predictions on what is to come. I'm saying that you can speculate on anything that continues. You can know when a continuation stops. A good player needs to win the session. It does not matter if doing that involves in 20 lost attempts. You must have the bankroll and the calm to venture past losing streaks. They exist and you can't avoid them. You just don't have to fund them. It's in seeing the biggest picture that you can beat this game. And most important of all. You can make bet selections based on illusions of predictability to get at the real win/loss data. If bet selection is meaningless then betting on cloud formations that look like ships is just as good as any guessing system. It's the results of those bets that matter. They are real.



When you see a giant losing streak on Red you know that Black is a giant win streak. This all comes down to seeing reality as it occurs. How you get to that data is inconsequential. People make the mistake of trying to micro manage trends.

 

That's all well and good except for one thing and it's the last I will say on the matter: Nobody does what you suggest.

 

Gizmo

While I realise what you were trying to portray here, you know Bacc' is my game, not Roulette, also 200 spins!! All of that is irrelevant to me. I could not withstand those kind of draw-downs.

True.

Of course.

I don't profess to beating anything, making such a statement leads to complacency, often I lose more decisions than I win and still make money, which is my prime focus.

That sounds real cool, how do I apply it to my game?

If you re-read what I posted, I do reference bet options that do not anthropomorphize the game, so it is not all pie in the sky guessing.

 

All trend players do this. Anybody that looks at a score board and use it to determine which side to bet next, is guilty of applying a human element on prior results where none exists. But don't fret, I also do it, I look at score board looking for long streaks when betting "AS", occasionally.

On the other side of the scale, somebody betting 1 side only does not anthropomorphize the game.

 

I could not stand betting real money on every bet for 200 spins or hands either. I doubt that betting only on Red or Black is much different than Baccarat with Player or Banker. What might be different would be the time it takes between outcomes and payoffs.

 

Trying pronouncing that after playing all night into the wee hours.