Baccarat Beatable Game?

Frank, the issue is my definition is long drawn over 66 pages (notwithstanding tens of pages of garbage) in the thread ‘Baccarat is the best small business’.

I would loathe to regurgitate the same thing here. Suffice to say, the recommended MM encompasses what one needs to do when winning and when losing. Suggested bet amounts relative to the bankroll size availability, targets et al.

From a research investment of multiple millions now only to begin recoup but derailed and interrupted by the pandemic. Not computer simulations. Real life play. Lmfao.

 

Not to belittle Frank here but most of you people believe that a mathematical expectation is an absolute conditional law, like the "Law of Averages." It has very little to do with putting up the chandeliers for profit. Proof of this postulation is in every corporate year end disclosure for those casinos that must publish a public earning report. They make tons more than the expectation based on player strategic error.

To take this notion one step further, you as a player, you can kill off the casino by taking advantage of strategically selected sequences of events that naturally occur in randomness. You can label these events as non sequitur and cast dispersions on them with less colorful disparaging pejoratives. But all you will end up doing is perpetuating the myth that the casinos want you to believe in the first place.

These myths give you permission and allowance to lose by (expectation.) It is my belief that in any fair coin flip consideration of odds, be it full on 50% / 50% or a no commission Baccarat, most players will end with their bankrolls fully depleted. These players are trained to achieve loss. They run out of bankroll long before the casino ever does. They never target opportunities because they don't know what an opportunity is.

It has to be mathematical or it does not exist. It's time to wake up and be Woken. You can follow the stats to the point of perfect expectation and completely miss out on the strategic use of fabulous win streaks. I'm glad too. I prefer the masses of players to be slaves of being lied to. To quote a well known scholar, "You can change the world if you just lie to it."

 

I really do hope that after all this times cats ain't gonna still talk the bulls shits, nonsenses about stops-win, stops-loss and quit while yer up stuffs, hey hey.

 

Even with a " stop loss" those cats have given most of it back to the casino including their bank roll.

 

Stop belittling me. That's my job

Just wanted to say, "what a well crafted post".

I might have even disagreed with a couple of things you said, but liked your verbiage so much I forgot what they were.

I especially like the fact that you quoted yourself.

 

This is my own pet peeve and soapbox lecture topic ad infinite nausea and falling on deaf ears.

My view is that it is NOT: "quitting while you are ahead" if you ever play again...

Of course to understand this, one would need to comprehend the meaning of the word "quitting".

Leaving a casino and taking a long pause is functionally identical to not stopping at all. When you return you are picking up where you left off...

 

It took a sec as your post was so good, but I did manage (with effort) to find a small error. There is no "Law of Averages". It does not exist in mathematics or science. It's an inaccurate lay term with no utility.

Oddly, there is now a "Law of Small Numbers" published by Amos Travesky and Daniel Kahnerman, which pertains to how people overvalue the information they gain from inadequate experience or trials.

There is a "Law of Large Numbers" but it's so different to what people perceive to be the ""Law of Averages"" it bears no resemblance.

 

We have all been disrupted by the pandemic in ways that go far beyond even what we know or think. I wish you good luck with getting back on track. You might give it another month or two as I'm not quite sure we are out of the woods yet. One more tiny mutation to the delta and things could get ugly again fast.

On the subject of computer simulations, I agree they are not the same as real life play. Sorry if you expected me to disagree.

I could disagree, but only for a small fee

Be well and keep safe...

P.S. I'll check out that other thread...

 

Well the Law of Averages is not actually a law. It's an axiom used to attempt to relate a notion as an expression in the form of a metaphor. People tend to think that it expresses knowledge or recognition of statistical capability. The only other quote was from Lynn Cheney that wrote "Telling The Truth" back in the early 90's. It's a reference that she makes to a 19th century French philosopher. She points out that 60's radicals latched on to the belief that this French philosopher was right. So they set out to infiltrate the education system and lie to the students. I guess I missed the part where I quoted myself. I should have read all of 'The Chicago Book of Style.'

 

Trust me as I have been discussing things like this for decades. We, those of us fanatical deadbeats that stay stuck to gambling forums, know that the "Law of Averages" is not a mathematical certainty. It's about as useful as these other laws, the law of thirds, the law of large numbers and house's edge. The3se are as much mythical beliefs as they are the suggestion of a mathematical fairytale. Now please go back and read what I wrote knowing that I know the law of averages is nothing useful. Now what do you see?

 

Ok Giz, what does the Law of Averages say about meeting a troll who spews foul language every other sentence, regurgitates what he listen from CNN and Fox and thinks he is high and mighty bcos of this ability to repeat ad verbatim, loud garbage mouth cursing and swearing and travels internationally with cash in his pockets with a low level VIP card but see it fit to condescend on others and that he is American?

Like Frank, I dont need an answer but an answer would help me form an opinion on the Law of Averages…

 

I too needed to look back at this. This: " how people overvalue the information they gain from inadequate experience or trials." It's what I have been trying to say for decades. There is no magical method or capacity to tell the future from past events. Yet people try to live in a state of hopeful thinking as to a kind of wishful thinking that there is a capacity. Nothing can predict the future. But coincidence can allow figure formations to become recognizable as if they are telling the future. This only happens temporarily. But once this appears to be telling the future you can exploit this condition, if you are agile and deliberate. You see trends have a beginning, a middle, and an end. You can get skilled at exploiting this, if as you say, correctly value trials or noticeable conditions through situational awareness. But I agree. Most people are never going to be aware of correctly using trials.

 

It says go back to your usual cool and calm demeaner and forget about these detractors. You have always been above all this. Our opinions on politics and who's ox has been gored are not going to affect those that will do all the changing and manipulating in this big bad world of acquired power. When politicians screw up they always CYA. They get others to run interference by proxy. They control the narrative and capacity to get the word out. My general incentive to get myself agitated over who screwed up things this time has only led to me being upset over things I will never be able to change. So the winning move is to let them screw things up. Don't care. You will be able to handle things better than those that have brought disaster upon themselves. It will be bad times but they will continue to blame others. Don't get trapped by their limited, one track minded, regurgitation of being manipulated by really strong controllers. You can be a slave to the media and its crazy plasma or you can dust off all this worldly apprehension and manipulation and be free. When people use code speak they are assuming that these things will trigger friend or foe. So my suggestion for the law of averages is don't get triggered. Don't allow it.

 

Is good post I reposted you all read again.
Lol don’t be apart of the algorithm. Go enjoy your life etc. cheers

 

Not all games are created equal. 3 areas of gambling that can be beaten are Baccarat Blackjack and sports betting, this has been proven over and over using math as a bet selection, years back wagering on sports by sharp computer programmers was such a thorn in the side of bookmakers they brought in there own computers along with some of the smartest math people they could find, one of these math guys worked on the space shuttle for Nasa, the setting of the line was so bad the sports bettor could program a sharper line then the odds maker could and take advantage of this mathematical edge winning millions and millions of dollars all by calculating numbers( MATH) Blackjack same, numbers ,math, same in Baccarat using math to calculate patterns over a period of time will get the money this has been proven.

 

So math is the key? Does math tell you when a win streak will start, how long it will last, and when it will end? The single spin odds in Roulette tell you that you have a smaller percentage of winning than you will have for losing. This is an absolute truth. But when I walk into a casino to gamble I never put it all down on one spin and wish for the best. I would not do that if in the middle of a tracked win streak. Reading Randomness is all about getting more wins during a win streak at an increased bet value and placing reduced minimal bets during a losing streak. In Blackjack the card counter knows when the cards are in their favor by noticing the number of cards left in the deck that are equal to or greater than 10. When they see the opportunity they increase the size of their bets. Even though the cards are in their favor the way they were shuffled matters. That perfect sequence of order can still kill off the card counter at times, even though the math says they are in an advantage state momentarily. The Blackjack player knows when they are in a win streak and knows how to act accordingly.

Math for mathZombies acts as a deterrent antiseptic to keep the self abuser in a state or condition for the absence of coincidental awareness, a derivative of conditional awareness. I have coined the phrase "coincidental change" in reference to the already known condition of "variable change." Reading Randomness is the example of it working before the math has been validated by peer review. Someone needs to present the math on why RR works and include that in the theory of statistics. Absent that I will go on ridiculing the absence of some forms of conditional awareness when it comes to absolutes. This is an unexplored field. I have placed the cart before the horse. I'm not statistical theoretician. I never want to be.

 

Oh I think I get it now. You were saying it's a fantasy. And I attempted to "correct you" with the counter argument that it was a fantasy.

That's mildly hilarious.

Well we're just going to have to agree to agree then. How boring

 

More work has been done on this topic than you might think. If you are looking for a non-mathy more biographical version of what's been done and by whom, I'd recommend the book, "The Undoing Project" by Michael Lewis (Of Moneyball Fame)

 

I was good friends with the NASA dude you mentioned. Nice fellow.

 

I'm so glad you liked the info. It's a cool concept and so so true.

You made me think of a joke about only reading the Law of Small Numbers once and thinking you understand it. I know there is a joke there I'll work on the wording.