Baccarat How to Spot a BAD System

A little on the origins of "mathZombie."

17 years ago they were the "mathBoyz." The primary math boy of them all was one person that chanted "past results can't predict future outcomes" year after year as if nobody ever listened to him. He reveled in his quest to rid the world of trend players. His actual goal was to look like he was smarter than everyone else and had a need of his own. He was recruiting people to track wheels all over the world for him so that he could check them for "wheel bias" consistencies. Anyone that would not support him was the target of his scheming. He still does this to this day. It was an endless, obnoxious drone.

But he had followers that would take on his enemies for him. They were less sophisticated and some of them even mean. So we get "mathNazi." These people had an actual need to save the world of newbies from the destruction that would be caused if they considered trend or pattern bet selection. So I started pretending that they wore Spandex suits and had savior complexes. JBS is even now trying to keep Frank from seeing past the blinders. JBL is a die hard SpandexBoy. He has only one message. He never shares what he does. He is here to save the opinions of the "absolutists" from the world of probability inferences. Look it up. There has been a war going on for centuries in the field of probability studies. JBL is just a mathNazi when it comes to him being right. Open discussions on these differences are not to be allowed. He is here to stamp that out.

A while ago I checked out the actual words to a song by "The Cranberries" where Dolores O'Riordan sings "what's in your head Zombie?" I realized that these mathBoyz and mathNazis are acting just like zombies. So I cranked it up a notch.

One more time, just for your edification:

 

+ 1

Thanks for the answers!!

as.

 

I’d like to give special attention to your post and answer each point you made individually. Please do not think I am trolling you or trying to disagree. I may be as far as possible from a doctor as a gambler can be, but I still feel the first rule is “do no harm”.


YOU SAID:

ANSWER: First you state that math can NEVER be broken—I agree with this!


But then you seem to be suggesting that there is “a potential sequence of hands that can beat you” which is, of course, predicted by math and the understanding of normal variation. It almost goes without saying (except it totally doesn’t—and no one gets it even if you do say it) that there are never any guarantees when engaging in an undertaking involving a random element… Kinda the meaning of “random”.

ANSWER: Your, “no loss system” comment is obviously spot on as random chance precludes any assurances. However, there we diverge. Confidence in an activity involving a random element is not something that can be cultivated or learned, since doing the activity will only ever result in one becoming less certain. The issue is that MATH is one of those rare things about which we can be absolutely certain without ever having to test it.


You can read the equation “2+2 = 4” and if you doubt its accuracy, you can go get two sets of two things, and then combine them to see if you actually (for-real) end up with four things.


You seem to be suggesting that there is an emotional component to this process. That you need to have confidence, isn’t in question.


Confidence is NEVER anything one needs to cultivate in the world of true professional gambling. It comes as the inexorable and unavoidable side-effect of mathematical equations that can no more be disputed than the statement that the sky is blue. (does not apply to people with color blindness)

ANSWER: Strongly Disagree: How can everybody have their own system when we are talking about something governed purely by math? There is ONE-BEST way to play each and every game of chance (in some cases—DON”T PLAY at ALL). I can only leave you with this quote:


There are very few things which we know, which are not capable of being reduc’d to a Mathematical Reasoning, and when they cannot, it’s a sign our Knowledge of them is very small and confus’d; and where a mathematical reasoning can be had, it’s as great folly to make use of any other, as to grope for a thing in the dark when you have a Candle standing by you.

John Arbuthnot (1701). “An Essay on the Usefulness of Mathematical Learning,: In a Letter from a Gentleman in the City to His Friend in Oxford..”, p.7

 

First: let me thank you introducing me to the term, "math zombie" that's actually pretty funny and I had not heard it before.

I'm actually pretty open minded and always looking to expand my knowledge.

I must admit that while I would like to respond to your post, I didn't really understand what you were saying well enough to comment.

THAT IS NOT AN INSULT!!!

You are using a lot of unfamiliar (to me) terms, and the terms I do recognised are in contexts that differ significantly from how I would use them. We are clearly not understanding each other.

We could probably, with enough time, sort it out and I might "get it". Who knows. I'm actually WAY over my self imposed social media time limit for the week...and should probably get back to cash generating work. Oh, I do computer service and server setup these days if you wondered.

Very nice chatting with everyone and glad most of you liked my post.

Might do another NEXT-Month if I have the time.

Peace to all...

 

Baccarat is a game of L U C K bit not of strategy or Math. Not married to the beast but good winnings .

 

There is this one big reasoning. How did Baccarat managed to become a casino game? A game that the casino approves? Is it Luck or strategy can't win over in the long run? Is it there are no trends or streaks that will work in the long run? Is it there are no money management that can work in the long run? All the above is true because Math don't lie. Binary outcome is subjected to the Law of Big numbers or better known as Law of Averages. This is what makes Baccarat work for the House . Locked, Stocked and Barreled.
In clearer terms means what ever you do be it bet selection, follow streak, looking at trends. timing high or low wagers , it's a double edge sword. Ying Yang. Is LOA regarded as Math Zombie?
LOA works in a very peculiar way. Someone facing a 20 B to 10 P session CAN be a break even occurence for someone who has a previous record of 10 B to 20 P. LOA don't have to be even in other words. While it is chasing a deficit for one particular person, it can be a surplus for another person.
Therefore to look for significant imbalances in one's PERSONAL records is actually using LOA to win. If LOA works for the House., It definitely can work for us if we pay attention to it. LOA is Math and Math don't lie.
Remember LOA impact each person individually because no 2 people will have the same record past happenings exactly or even close to similarity.
That's why I stressed on Destiny and also NOT using test shoes to gauge your approach.
I urged everybody to at least try to understand where I am coming from. Playing with Math on your mind is never a bad thing.

 

5 Marty is short for five step Martingale 1-2-4-8-16. Total 31 unit Bankroll to win a fractional unit each time.
I find it so hard to explain that Martingale and any other Money Management method is facing the SAME odds. The only difference is the characteristics of Martingale is leaning heavily to Probability of winning a unit BUT that unit is a fractional unit and therefore the win is not considered a true or complete win. The complete win is only after all the 31 fractional units are achieved.
People have the wrong perception that Martingale is win a little a lose a lot. If one were to look deeper, Martingale is actually a grind.
When somebody goes on tilt in a normal see-how-it- goes shoe he will try to double up chasing his losses. That is the WRONG Martingale because the real Martingale is to win a fractional unit and not used to chase losses when one is losing. In addition I have asked whether 31 unit Bankroll is off the charts? 31 units is a manageable loss especially when it has a 97% probability of winning. Is losing $3000 on a $100 minimum table TOO MUCH by not doing Martingale? If it is normal, then what's wrong with Martingale?

 

There is such a term as Value At Risk(VAR). Again, different for different people. For me, a $3,000 bankroll would more efficiently fund a HPB or in your parlance, a unit bet of $150 or 200 instead of 100.

And in my world, a unit bet win is more common then not. If there are 3 LIAR, there will be stoppage time, loss will be 3 units or less and recoup can be done an hour or so later. And it is easier to recoup a -ve 3 unit position then a -ve 31 unit position.

Because 5 LIAR happens more often then once in 31 tries. I wont be able to provide the statistics but it is my feeling. Of course, even if 5 LIAR happens less often then 31 tries, the VAR is too risky for some, if not most. Some may comment that the strategies I espoused would need a robot to comply, I think a 5 step Negative Marty (or those with the temerity to do 7 steps negative) is the one that would require robotic non-feelings.

And a grinding approach of win 1 unit vs potential of losing 31 units just turns the VAR proposition upside down.

Again, my opinion. Peace

 

This is where I need to specify. Comparing the unit bet of a 5 Marty cannot be at par with a flat Bettor. If you use $100 unit flat betting with a $1000 bankroll and winning $300 unit target can fairly be compared to a 5 Marty user playing $30 unit using a $930 bankroll to win 10 units or $300. The reason being the tremendous probability the 5 Marty have over flat betting. So when there is a bust if 5 loses IAR, the flat Bettor is down $500 and the Marty guy $930. Not too much of a difference.

 

Nice math.
To recoup $500 I need to win 5x$100 bets.

To recoup $930, I need to win 31x $30 bets.

Yep.

Not much of a difference there.

Can I choose a constant and vowel plus 2 more constants for the first word and a constant plus a vowel and another constant for the second word? Thanks.

I seem to remember that not many people here can win 25 bets in a session let alone in the real world. I’ll stick with trying to win 5 flat bets as my preferred biased bet method. Cheers

 

OMG. You left out the meat of this reasoning which is the tremendous probability 5 Marty had over Flat Betting. 97% against 50%.
The Marty player plays 10 series and he reached his target win of $300 at $30 a series. Average # of hands in play is 30. Can a Flat Bettor win 3 units in 30 hands? Of course it can. What about a difficult day. That's where the comparison is. For Marty, there is no difficult day. Either good or bad.

 

Some days you sound like you achieve this but most of your posts suggest otherwise, don’t get me wrong I believe you as I believe you are the professional Marty man ish.

But it does seem strange how so many casino are still open if the the Marty is that good. I guess you haven’t had a chance to knock them all off the lofty perch they sit on. I’m guessing your early 50s late 40s and once Covid world wide is over you can get out there and bury those pesky casino one by one.

Hopefully with the volume of casino in northern hemisphere you won’t get to knock the skippy island casino out before I croak.

You know I’m a fan of the Marty as I have posted before, but it’s not for me alas , sure would be fun to knock out all those casino nevertheless.
Cheers

 

Never the twain shall meet....

 

Let me make it simple for you.

It comes from your own statement.

You are a mathZombie.

Need proof?

You are clueless. The use of past spins is to find coincidence working in your favor as evidenced by real results as it occurs. It also shows when coincidence is not working in your favor. This is a boolean logic process. At no time does it infer a capacity to predict. But you being a confirmed mathZombie can only see a claim of prediction. You are projecting. That's a term in psychology where you attempt to make yourself look smart by assuming that the mathBoyz, mathNazis, and mathZombies have always been right. It's your crowd. Own it.

 

What about the Trend betting system for Baccarat Gizmotron ?


The cats are waiting . Give the Math Zombies a day of rest.

 

It's very simple. Just use my practice software on Red / Black only bets. Use the single zero wheel option.

Learn everything I have taught about trends and patterns. No matter how good it looks on Odd/Even, Low/High, ...etc ignore that data and just stay confined to Red/Black.

Try to learn that singles on the weak side happen in Banker/Player too.

Now learn all the common trends and patterns.

I only illustrated singles on the weak side because people need to be dragged kicking and screaming to open their eyes. Even given that, people want the money placed in their wallets with no effort required. I'm coming to the conclusion that none of this sharing is worth anything. I figured all this out on my own. Why don't you try it for once?

 

Because it doesn't fucking work! I bet you wouldn't finance these people into doing it in a REAL casino for that exact reason.

 

Do you know you are actually saying the same thing that you just posted above to yourself? Let's talk what you believes and let me tell you that you are 100% correct only if your reasoning is for deductive Math like the Math we learned in College.
The ultimate Math study is Actuarial Science which applies the mathematics of probability and statistics to define, analyze, and solve the financial implications of uncertain future. Noticed the word uncertain. Baccarat outcomes are uncertain. Therefore there is another side of Math which is Inductive and this is where you missed out.
Deductive reasoning is what you are telling is. Logically true & Realistically true.
Inductive reasoning is what Baccarat is which is Logically true BUT NOT realistically true.

 

I am NOT interested in any software and other testing . I am winning at Baccarat nice DAY ONE beginning 1996.



It`s a cruces among the posters .

 

Frankly I don't give a damn about past singles or swarms. That`s dead meat and a lot of people know it.