Baccarat Domination Anticipation

There was a thread a while back that begged the question: Bet Selection v. Money Management, and I had voted for Bet Selection as being the more important of the two. I further explained why: I said that, in the long run, there isn't enough money in the world for the player that can't seem to put their chips into the correct circle more often than not (read: better than 50/50). I mean, think about it for a minute: while we, as players, have our "buy-in" bankroll, the casino has theirs, as well. And it goes without saying that the casino has it all over us in that regard; they beat our buy-in bankrolls by 10's (if not 100's) of multiples. So they ALWAYS have much more money, much more "ammunition", then we ever will put onto the felt....so is it any wonder that they are the "favorite" to win this "coin flip" that we call a "session of play"? Of course not.

So, money management aside, what might be our best chance, our best tool, to get the better of the casino in the long run? Bet Selection is the answer. So we can see the importance of improving our strike rates, and, just as importantly, the "footprint" of our strike rates (read: winning "clusters"), in order to maximize our profits when we are hitting our plays.

So now we might want to ask ourselves: What might be the best way to both improve our strike rates and get the desired winning "footprint" that we're looking for? While I can't speak for all, I can reveal my answer to the puzzle: Domination Anticipation.

Alright, we all know what "Anticipation" means, so let's begin by defining "Domination". Baccarat is an "even chance" game, simply put, banker v. player. A never-ending choice between the two, banker or player. But, know this of Baccarat, and, frankly, any "even chance" proposition: There will be times of Domination. There will be periods where one side has the better of the two and, therefore, is winning the bulk of the current decisions. This, my friends, is domination. And let us be very aware, domination can come in many different forms....streaks, chops, two's....and so forth.

What's that you say, gr8player, chops and two's can be forms of dominations as well? YES, they most certainly can be. After all, what is a straight chop (B P B P B P) if not a domination of OLD (read: opposite last decision). And the two's (BB PP BB PP) are nothing more than a OTBL (read: opposite time before last) domination. So doms are not necessarily confined to simply streaks of one side over the other; rather, they can come in various forms.

But, make no mistake of it, come they will. If you track the B v P and the TBL v OTBL, you will come across doms. So now, let's move on to the Anticipation portion of the program:

The better (read: sooner) you learn to anticipate doms, the more efficiently one becomes at "trapping" their immediate profits from same. (In other words, the better you get at getting into them quicker, the LESS IMPORTANT it becomes for them to last "forever", as we all know they never do. And here, my friends, is the key for "anticipation":

"Gap Allowance". The player that is honing in on doms is always tracking for small "gap allowances", where the dominated side is hitting the very least (preferably one) times while the dominate side is getting their multiple wins. So we seek the smallest "gap allowances" possible at the time; the "gap" being defined as the "intervals" (read: losses) between the multiple hits of the dominating side. Again, preferably only one, but it can (and will, at times) go to two or even three, just so long as when it does revert back to the dom side, that dom side continues with multiple hits that are greater than the minor "gap allowance".

And then I look as well at the winning "footprints" of certain doms, such as: Are they hitting "doubles" or "triples" or more? Now there's where I'll utilize my money management, with positive play. Furthermore, going back to the "gap allowances", based upon whether they are one's or two's, there's where I'll utilize my money management as well, this time with a bit of negative play.

But, for me at least, money management will never trump bet selection. I need to be right more than I am wrong, especially when view play (as one should) over the long term. I need to put my chips, however many they might be, into the correct circle more often than not, and, to me, there exist no better formula for that than my "Domination Anticipation" play.

As always, I wish all of you the very best of it. Stay safe and stay well.

 

Agree. If you don’t have a BS that provides a positive EV at whatever game you’ve chosen then you’ve got to keep researching and testing until you do. Otherwise it’s likely a waste of time/money.

Too difficult/risky to rely on just MM to get where you want to go....or stop win/stop loss, or any of the other tactics that are forced on you if you don’t have a BS that performs. Just too hard to go the MM-only route, at least for me.

 

Yep, but the notion of such an entity is utter nonsense, so easy to prove, no matter how you play, how GR8 plays, how I play, or indeed anybody and everybody, stop/start, no-bet, judge 5, 10, 15 or 20 hands back, it's a 50-50 game, it's impossible for any bet selection to circumvent the maths, while Jimski claims a 52% or whatever strike rate (not enough to be discernible) his sample is small given all possibilities for a single shoe.

 

I still say it's a guess. I stopped tracking every bet a while back. I just did it for an exercise. I got no idea how I accomplished that. I think it had to do with just locking up wins. Of course I had a preferred mechanical selection but I'm pretty sure it doesn't overcome the HA.

Betting and money management still king IMO. Expect to lose more hands than win. I wish I knew what bet was going to win more than lose. I don't.

 

Good thread.

My personal preference is flat betting and it obviously relies solely on selection criteria. If you cannot get your selection correct more than 51% you are in trouble imho. With my particular selection process I had used the one unit up one unit down bet system, yes I can win more money eventually but it does bring into play that casino big bank scenario. Also coming into play is the extended time frame of play to come back to even or make a profit. This can create errors of judgment caused by , fatigue, going on tilt because of the huge emotional swing of drawing down a long way into your bankroll, the shoe ending, the dealer makes a mistake not posting the last hand played etc, dealer make a mistake that’s irreversible and the pit boss closes the table. Plus any other event that can stop you profiting. Happens. I have posted on another thread that I don’t see the reason anymore to go down $5000, recover the loss then maybe end the session even money, slightly down or a unit up in profit, yes the player card gets points etc but it opens the door to to many other potential problems, ie pure gambling, bad health etc .So rather than play the casino preferred way , the way 90+ % of people play , to me it’s just no.
— In my opinion if you cannot flat bet your self out of the situation you shouldn’t be playing. So put me down as selection criteria trumps money management kinda player.
Cheers

 

I sometimes think on average you make 1or 2 unit profit, that can be in the first few bets or by the end of shoe, that and bet selection is probably what (after many years of playing ) steers me to favour flat betting the most. Even after as I said being down 5k you come back and end with 2units ,10 k swing for $200 nar.
Cheers

 

I like this thread because I think it's the $64 million question.

A lot of people will ask what's best between bet selection and MM and then 'gr8player' throws anticipation into the mix which I just like to refer to as timing. Get this aspect of the game right and it sure does solve a lot of problems like when to bet, where to bet and also help conserve the bankroll. It's why I always put timing ahead of bet selection and MM.

Now that's not me saying all bets are equal and nobody could come up with some kind of superior bet selection. There are guys on here who have studied this game for years and talk about a few unique concepts IMO. One of my particular favourites would be some of Sputnik's work. When you are looking to get on the right side of things, it certainly helps if you can visualize a game where instead of two parts (50-50), you have three parts (33-33-33), because for sure, one of those parts can go absent for a while and you can take advantage by riding the other two parts.

I don't discard MM either because once you find a way to win, only an idiot would carry on flat betting, by having a slightly superior bet selection than (50-50) and using anticipation/timing to it's best effect, you are then in a position to up the ante and strike while the iron is hot.

Maybe that's why the conservation regarding what's best (ie. BS, MM, A/T) keeps coming back to the top because instead of just one of them, to really come out on top, you need to utilize all three to their best effect and then you might very well be a particularly hard nut to crack at the Baccarat tables.

 

$64 MILLION QUESTIONS
1. Can you win flat betting, since you can walk away when you want?
2. Can you win with progressions even if you can not win with flat betting or end up losing more with progressions?

Mathematically these questions have been asked and answered. If your chance of winning is p and your chance of losing is q (q=1-p) and if p<q due to house advantage can you win flat betting or with progressions? Read any advanced book on probability of gambling. My favorite book on "Mathematics of Gambling" is "The Doctrine of Chances" by Prof. Ethier. You can browse it in Amazon. Search "mathematics of gambling" in "books". There are also a lot of mathematical papers on probability of winning in sub fair games using systems, that prove the futility of systems.

Simulations: Dr. Wilson in his book "Casino Gambler's Guide" showed that simulations can prove the futility of gambling systems. You can simulate any system in your laptop and come to your own conclusions.

In gambling sites like this, you will find account of winnings by some punters. They evidently bucked the odds. A short sample does not prove the broad truth.

My own conclusions are "NO" to both the questions based on mathematics and simulations.

 

You are so right. Nobody can expect to win more than they lose in the long run. To beat this game you must have good timing. You must know when you are in a losing streak. If I search for only one characteristic, domination, like this thread is about, then I can see times when it's not dominating. If I see singles on the weaker side and that condition continues for 50 hands then I have a clear objective to hammer the casino while that condition continues. I have done a perfect job of demonstrating that conditions like that exist. Now if you are just looking for strong side and weak side without regard for pattern based characteristics then you still have sessions where one side will be stronger for very long stretches. It's just a matter of noticing things. But this is also true. If you ignore conditions and never notice things that are happening in long duration then you will be clueless. From that tactic of clueless advantage you get the expectation of the mathematical outcome. This is funny to me because you are satisfied by confirming the characteristic of having considered no information. It's like setting out to find nothing. It makes for comical arguments. Those that are experts on nothing are to be believed. That's a domination that never ends. It's a trend all of gambling forums. People use mathematics to form discussions and it always ends up defending a magical belief about probability and absolutism. It's all just one size fits all or the highway dogma.

 

That does not prove, validate, or peer review anything. Nobody has written an artificial intelligence sim for Reading Randomness. I could but I won't. I have decided to slow walk this and program players instead. If you just set out to prove that A.) a person can't see singles on the weak side. and B.) that even when you do find singles on the weak side that there is no guarantee that you will get to exploit them. All you would be simulating is that you established that there is no guarantee. I don't need a guarantee to take advantage of a condition. I just need to be ready willing and able to clobber the casino when it happens. Now if I only fund my actions against long stretches of singles on the weak side then how am I supposed to get mathematically killed? That equation does not add up. The only conclusion is that the mathBoyz will say what they always say, that "you can't know when singles on the weak side will happen." Still, I know that they will happen and that sometimes they will happen for long stretches. They also signal that they have ended in one spin or hand.

Now just looking for one characteristic is time consuming and wasteful. There's double's on one side. There's triples and doubles with no singles. There's the absence of singles. I could go on and on what you should be willing to discover that is in longer phases of occurrence. But to ignore opportunity and defend nothing, searching for nothing, and seeing nothing as the absolute end all to understanding what is possible is kind of like (what?)

 

Yes timing is very very important , but that would also come with experience of when to bet , what to bet and how you determine your bet. I would think the experience of timing be it successful or unsuccessful has much to say about one selection criteria. Many people speak of table surfing , looking for happy table or tables that represent that persons playing method for lack of a better word. Perhaps what they are really saying (as this thought has just now occurred to me ) they are actually looking at tables that coincide with time.
- The time is the key to when and what they are about to bet on. For mine own example I would say that as I approach a stadium game I do watch the play before I enter into a game sequence, the observation mostly determines one of two things for me. One is it presenting an opportunity for me to make a profitable selection and /or two it does not. I do state in my thread information relating to above with words of ‘“actual hands played ‘“ as I don’t always list the number of hands viewed before actually playing.
Yes time, good point and food for thought.
—Yes Stephen I agree simulations can be retrofitted to suit any system/method hence I call them systems/sim junkies and it becomes just mental masturbation , some people are into that and that’s fine.Some people love cognitive bias, Each their own I suppose. I have opposed them when they say a gazillion shoes give this or that result , a sim just doesn’t account for say the above mentioned time factor. Math based assumption would mean you never left the house if you truly believed only in mathematics as the math state your more likely to get hit by a bus than die in a plane crash. Etc.
- The math is not the be all and end all in baccarat. I know people make money, I make money on baccarat. I know it’s ev negative but I make money and no math person can show me how not to make money on baccarat.All they can say is it can’t be done I’ve run the gazillon shoes etc. Because the math says it cannot be done don’t mean squat. All it means is they are fairly narrow minded imho...And the perhaps should stay indoors. I’m sure Rodger Bannister didn’t listen to the math guy he trained with.
Cheers

 

I've read this for years, I fail to see what impact it has that any casino has millions compared to your few hundred or thousands? You are trying to make money, not take down the house.

Wise move, must be brain numbing never-mind the stress to play like that. The casino will be thinking, okay you win your few hundred most days, but eventually we'll take $10k off you, then you need another $10k to continue playing, plus it's a long way back. The problem with that D'Alembert, is after a bad run, you need an equally good run to follow, otherwise your bets stay "up there" with the commission eating away at you.

Hey Eugene hope your keeping safe, so your talking about positive betting here, anther tough nut to crack.

I fully concur.

 

Yes I can win flat betting that’s what I do. Like I stated above the guy that wrote the math book cannot show me how not to make the money I do make on baccarat. And saying it’s not possible is not an answer to how my bank account increases each month. I guess we would just have to say it’s better to beg to differ, and leave it at that. Also no math based AP has yet to prove on any forum that they actually make money so I guess we just have to say we beg to differ again.
Cheers

 

I believe in Science and Mathematics. Baccarat is negative expectation game and majority will lose money. I am not disputing some are making money playing baccarat. But I do not want people to believe that making money in baccarat is easy and blow the money they can not afford.

 

No I only flat bet for the reason you basically suggested. No I’m not out to bust the casino , talk about unrealistic expectations , but I do make enough money that it satisfies me in a fairly short time frame per month. I appreciate your input on this forum and I may not agree on everything you say but I do agree on somethings. I respect your opinion.
Cheers

 

Yes I agree with you, it’s not easy and I too am concerned that people blow their money due to stupid martingale and other progression betting, all the other idiotic gamblers fallacy out there , the stupidity of putting money in slot machines , drinking and gambling,etc Yes I am concerned but unfortunately there are problem gamblers, I also agree they should be educated, iam concerned that unscrupulous poster try to scam people on gambling forums it’s disgusting.
I agree.
I am not advocating put your head in the sand because mathematics says it cannot be done, I’m not saying people should bet because there is a holy grail method out there. There isn’t..
But by everyone ( math and non math posters) have a constructive conversation we may be able to help a person one way or the other. You only have to help one person in your life time to have had a good life well spent.
So if posters rather than call someone an idiot or fuckturd as examples you may convince readers of a thread you actually have something of value the reader may consider, think about, act on to lessen the financial loss or the addiction to gambling they maybe experiencing. These are some of the reasons I post but I would say debunking the various gamblers fallacies is my main ones
Love your work Stephen
Cheers

 

There is an example, I’m concerned about people throwing away money like this . So the mathematics say you can’t win on baccarat but it’s ok to have fun and bet like above. . In my opinion that’s problem gambling

 

You are correct here, Johno. It does remain a 50/50 game (minus the 1.2% house edge) and there's no set bet selection that'll circumvent it.

That said, I remain steadfast in my belief that there are certain elements that the savvy player can put into play, that, combined with their favorite bet selection process, can lead them to an over-all positive style of play. Those primary elements include: "no-betting", virtual betting, and optimal quitting points. And secondarily the use of a shoe and/or session progression based upon one's current variance statistics.

My comment about the virtually unlimited amount of casino money had nothing to do with one's amount of winning. No one's trying to "take down the house". I was speaking of the disproportionate edge that the casino carries against us, dollar-wise.

Think of it, Johno....you and I are playing a coin-flip game of "Heads and Tails". 50/50, right? We've agreed to play for $1 a flip, but I have $100 to play with and you've got only $10 to play with. Now, if you had to bet on which player would go broke before the other, which would you choose? It's a no-brainer, right? Of course the player with the $100 is the absolute favorite in this scenario.

Well, that's what we're facing each and every session versus the casinos at the Bac tables, and that doesn't even take into account the inherent psychological imbalance (remembering that the casino is simply a results-producing, non-thinking "machine") working against us.

BINGO!

While we're constantly looking for our favorite trend to appear so that we can pounce on it at our earliest possible moment, all in the name of maximizing our profits therefrom; we must NEVER underestimate the inherent value of "no-betting" all of those times when there simply is no appearance of said trend.

Know this, my friends, before you even contemplate this game: There will be MUCH MORE instances of "chaos" (read: times when the shoe is simply "unreadable") than there will be of instances of dominance (or, for that matter, any so-called "favorite" trend).

You know how you make money in those "chaos" cases?: by SAVING money (read: "no-betting"). What was it that the great Benjamin Franklin once said: "A penny saved is a penny earned." Add five stars to that if you're a Bac trender.

Stay safe and stay well.

 

Banker wins 45.8597%
Player wins 44.6247%

No where near "50/50". Your bets will LOSE or not win nearly 55% of the time. Nothing short of cheating or advantage play will overcome that. No betting system or method. No "guessing." No "reading the board." NOTHING!!!

 

There was no real need to include some irrelevant HE figure, makes it look like you are trying to pump some credibility into waffle.

Sure, you have been posting this for close on 15 years, when anybody asks for evidence, nothing is forthcoming. It's tiresome, it's old, it's meaningless, it's beyond boring. What's your angle here, "look at me", "look what I can do", but can't or won't tell, show or give you an example. Thousands of your compatriots are dying yet you want to indulge in "look at me" games on a gambling forum", err okay then, Like I say, you've been doing this for over 15 years, do you really need this, like right now, seriously?

Yeah, but we don't sit down and play one against one until the bitter end, until one of us goes broke, it may seem like that, but it's not. If we needed to have equal or more money than our adversity in order to win, then nobody would ever win, which obviously isn't the case.

As for the rest, when you look at the death toil say in NYC, good people have passed, people have passed due to their attempts to save others, I shake my head, I truly do..