Baccarat Proof that Jae's OG System is Validated

Also, when it virtually gets to -20. Our bet doesn’t start out at $100. It starts at whatever the grind calls for. Typically at -20 the bet would be 3, 4, or 5 units. So our first bet is according to that. It may be $400.

 

You don’t have to try and program in my trigger point. Even if you treat the programming like we are betting every hand, the outcome will be pretty similar.minus the amount of commission of course.

 

That's what I programmed it to do because everyone left me on my own to figure out the rules. That is what one website said to do.

So what do you do? This looks ridiculous with these monster sized bets the way that I programmed it.

This is exactly why I put telemetry in my sims. Wrong moves stick right out.

 

What makes the bets go down or stay the same after Bank hits?

You are saying going up $100 after each bank hit is wrong. So what is right?

 

If you look down you will see that I have it switching over to real bets once virtual totals reach - $2,000.

That's -20 units at $100 units, right?

 

I need to know what makes a bet increase in value if it is not on every banker win.

 

I didn’t check your source. But there are sites out there with misinformation on OG.

The object is to win 1 unit, and the series is over.

here’s an example:

Player okay we are -1 betting 1

I use a slash to represent “betting”

that will look like this “-1/1”

P -1/1
P -2/1
P -3/1

we have 3 players in a row. We are -3 units but still only betting 1 unit.

P -4/1
P -5/1
B -4/2
B -2/3
B +1

in that example we saw 5 players in a row followed by 3 bankers. We end up positive 1 unit. Our biggest draw down was 5 units and our biggest bet was 3 units. That’s the end of the series. I’ll do another example:

P -1/1
B 0
P -1/1
P -2/1
B -1/2
B +1

Here is an example of OG with my trigger:

P -1/1
P -2/1
B -1/2
P -3/2
P -5/2
B -3/3
P - 6/3
P -9/3
P -12/3
P -15/3
B -12/4
P -16/4
B -12/5
P -17/5
P -22/5 this is where I start betting
B -17/6
B -11/7
P -18/7
B -11/8
B -3/4 the bet changes here because the goal is to only be at +1 at the end of the series

P -7/4
B -3/4
B +1

The series is over. I would have made 23 units minus commission.

 

I need the rules for how bets increase and decrease if they do.

absent them this work is finished.

 

The bets only increase on wins if the banker (or whatever you are betting on) is negative more than one unit. So if something starts out chopping, the bets won’t go up, it will just remain the same. You have to lose at least 2 in a row before you can increase your bet on a win. Once you do win and are at +1, everything resets.

 

OK, I understand all those steps. It looks like you do go up 1 unit on each banker win at least in this example.

And I do remember the website telling you to bet only enough to get back to +1 on the last bet. But what makes no sense to me is how you stay around +4 or +5 units when real bets start.

 

Oh, geez. That's important to know. Don't you think?

 

I get it now. geez, I forgot that all those virtual bets were just money that never needed to be actually paid back. So resolving back to +$100 is actually +$2,000 or a little more.

So two or three sessions a day at $4,000 to $6,000 per team, times four teams comes to a $20,000 day.

 

Not 100% sure about this rule but to me it sounds like if Virtual bets are in the minus value stage then a Banker win goes up $100. But if Virtual bets or real bets are in the + side then the bets do not increase on Banker wins. If that is correct then it is very simple to see it.

 

I'm fried. I'll look at these rule changes tomorrow in the sim.

 

OK, it's coming to me slowly. I base the increases on the negative value in the virtual bets. But I can also keep track of the real bets totals without using them for increases in the Banker wins side of things once that starts. The important thing is that while in the virtual side of waiting bets do not increase if Virtual bets go into plus values while waiting to get to -20. That should now occur faster and not with all those monster sized bets anymore. Yuk, more thinking about the algorithm.

 

it'll be interesting to see the results @gizmotron . thanks for the effort put in

 

It would be wouldn't it.

I'm not going to go forward. OG in the hands of a Reading Randomness skilled player is probably awesome.

Here is how to prove that. I have my practice software that is here and available for download for free, the 1.4 version is recommended.

The way that I validated RR was to teach a person until they achieved a 2 to 1 win to loss ratio. This allowed for a player to lose at 7 net units. The point being that you could lose sessions and still come out ahead in the long run.

Here is where this gets real good. RR is about flowing with the up and down waves of coin flip type games of chance. You just jump on the dominate working side and flow in and out of virtual bets if you can't see a dominate side or an almost perfect occurring pattern like singles on the weak side. So the trick it to jump between virtual bets and real bets.

Jae has a rudimentary version of the RR strategy in OG. They attack the Banker side and pay the vig. But they stay on the Banker side once they start real money bets. They don't admit to dropping back to the virtual side when player goes into domination. Or better yet they might have a monster sized streak going on in favor of the Player side and they keep betting into it because they have triggered real bets and must continue with the OG progression with real money.

Only a trained RR player can see and understand this. Yet I've tried to make it clear.

So for Jae's benefit I will try another way. The -20 trigger to start real bets is based on a mathematical average that Banker will turn around and start to dominate from the trigger point. And this is true mathematically. It's called regression toward the mean. There are other ways of stating this, I mean other phrases that mean the same thing.

By description it goes like this: " Regression toward the mean is the phenomenon that arises if a sample point of a random variable is extreme (nearly an outlier), a future point is likely to be closer to the mean or average."

Jae's team is using this to trigger bets on Banker.

RR skilled players use another trigger and also return to the virtual bet after a few coincidental successes. There is no barge ahead no matter what happens. With regards to using OG I'm convinced that I can use it with RR in my practice software, and combined with excellent RR skills never lose a session. Since the validation process for RR is my practice software and keeping track of every session results, I will devote my time to experimenting with OG in RR.

It makes very little sense for me to write an Artificial Intelligence algorithm to prove this point for RR. Those that are RR trained can try out Jae's version of OG as demonstrated in this thread by his perfect example. In this version of OG the Banker side only goes up on each win of Banker after the real bets are triggered. This goes on until the desired win goal is achieved.

Jae says that the win point is at the +1 point in the virtual bets track. The real money track actually increases as an unsigned value (numbers without the negative symbol; example: -18)

But back to the most important point. You can play Jae's "regression toward the mean" trigger or you can play OG Reading Randomness style. Guess where I'm headed.

In the RR thread there are many examples of selecting one side of a coin and using it to create a graph of 200 or 300 spins. You can take my practice software and select Red to win on 300 spins. Once that is done you just press the Graph checkbox. Up will pop a graph of the actual up or down waves of the results. You can see regression toward the mean yourself in action.

I chose to go with the flow, the trend is your friend. But I do want to see if RR can go into always winning with the OG steps and proper use of Virtual Bets triggered by RR skills.

So I'm done. I don't need to finish the sim. I already know that being stuck with real bets, no matter how a player streak might treat those bets, is not the best use of my playing time. I would jump on the dominate occurring side. Having 6 parallel simultaneous data feeds allows me to see a hot trend in one stream while another stream is worthless.

To make my point clearer, "regression toward the mean" does not thrill me too much. It works most of the time on average, but it barges right ahead with real bets when it does not work.

So I will now go silent and work for a while on my practice software to establish real data using OG with RR.

Thanks for the ideas Jae. That's why I still hang around this forum. People here actually think, even when they act like people fighting in a tub full of mud.

Sorry if you wanted Jae's "regression toward the mean" version of OG simulated. I see no point. Jae's method works almost all the time. It's not bad.

Have fun. Now go back to throwing mud on each other.

 

Epic
Lol
So is this correct?
We have someone sling mud for a week or so, totally disagreeing that some proposal may work, then today, ONLY today decided to google exactly what the OG is and how it works. So for however long vehemently stating WHY OG and the advocate was a total failure, a complete liar. So it’s ok to not know what one is talking about but just to be able to shout the loudest to hammer home that one is correct even if one doesn’t have a clue about what they are talking about.

Then to start a thread to write a sim then stop a thread and say it’s a winner. How quickly you had become like the naysayers and those that ridiculed the RR you developed.

I suppose the difference in the end was at least you acknowledged the person you were dissing was potentially correct, something the naysayers of your RR couldn’t or won’t do. Their loss not yours

That’s a big step on your part,acknowledging that the poster maybe on to something. imho.

Cheers

 

@ Punk City . your common sense is worth a pot of Gold .


ND

 

It was two o'clock in the morning. I wake from sleep and have solutions to programing algorithms. Then I went back to sleep. Then I just woke up again just now. Took a dump. Now I'm less full of it. HAHAHA! PunkCity. Sorry for the cut back.

Now for the fun part. ND's 3, 2, 1 is far better suited for RR. Actually Lungyeh's ( 1, 20 ) is the best for RR. That's where you bet minimum or Virtual until you see a spot in the trends to attack.

I got to thinking how micro trends often swarm in triples. This is perfectly suited for 3, 2, 1 or 2, 1, 2 and back to virtual bets.

OG just builds and builds no matter what changes might occur.

So now I will post a few graphs to show how "regression toward the mean" would work for you just sticking to one side.

...and I think I might go back to working on the OG sim. Right after some coffee.