Baccarat Quotable Quote

Behaving like any other negative progression. WWWWW LLLLLLLLLL WWWWW does you no favours, you need to control the loss strings!!!

 

Yeah the more wins you get the easier it is to get the double win for sure. If you read the whole post that Soxfan referenced you'll note that I play every hand in the shoe to the end with each of my placements to come up with the statistics I mentioned. I don't know, of course, what selection Soxfan uses but it appears there's a subjective element. That makes sense to my way of thinking because I do the same thing with my game.

That brings up another question. Do different mechanical bet selections change the wins and losses in a row significantly enough to alter one's betting style or do they all perform exactly the same? Simply put, is there one betselection that's better than another?

 

Long term testing the answer would be no.

You would expect anti-middle 3 to lose more often than say anti-middle 4, which should lose more often than anti-middle 5, which should be more frequent than AM6, ditto AM7 should lose the least. Based solely on the frequency of the relevant nemesis patterns. However each option has different placed bets ratio's, so when you factor those in, everything tested comes out in the wash the exact same. This was confirmed for me by a friend who tested them for me.

Ditto my Anti-Binary repeat option that was over at betselection (testing was cancelled, as I kinda figured what the long term results would be). However, achieving greater than the expected norms was never my goal, rather controlling the loss strings. It would be on par with say anti-streak after 4 decisions stopping after 3LIAR.

The late Mr Oops tested all the standard bet options, DBL, FLD, OLD, they all came out close to the same. In fact if you test any bet option against the Truth Tables, if the result is 50-50 (which it will be) then long term testing will reflect that, give or take 0.5%.

There is no escape from the maths, so we have to explore other options, such as "controlling the LIAR's" and money management.

 

A note of caution. Before playing with real money check it on Zumma or wizard of odds shoes to see whether your bet selection can get parlay wins in 13 attempts enough times to offset the 103 units loss. soxfan is a shrewd cat and duplicating his feat is not easy.

 

Then it doesn't matter what betselection you use. What you need to know is what it loses to. Then have a plan to attempt to avoid the bad spots. When that doesn't work a good betting plan with proper financing takes over.

But I don't think we need a particular bet selection. We can go right to betting the dominance, trend, bias whatever you want to call it. The rest is betting and working with statistical limitations.

 

Aren't Zumma shoes old hand shuffled shoes. Has anyone ever compared them to choose from RNG?

 

Jimske, there was a guy on the old Baccaratforums website who personally knew Dr Stan Johnson (his real name) and said he played a few shoes with him in Vegas and discussed the game together. ZR1's name was Ted. (Not sure if that's the same Ted009 who now posts over on Al's site.) Anyway, he had a couple of hundred posts on the old Baccaratforums site and had a bit to say about Zumma if you are interested. You are right in thinking that they were all hand shuffled shoes.

 

Yes and No.

I'll try and explain it this way, solely as an example.

Take the bet selection equilibrium v's non-equilibrium.

Running that bet option against columns of 4's, then every 4 hands you are placing either a single or two bets. So for argument sakes betting approx 25 times per shoe. With those 25 bets that you place, you have to handle the variance of the LIAR's.

Now compare the same bet option equilibrium v's non-equilibrium but this time using blocks of 12 hands. We don't know how many hands per shoe we will place, but for argument sakes, let's say it is 12 per shoe.

As you can see, the difference in placed bets between the two options is now halved. Both options resolve to 50% against the truth tables. If you run extensive tests of both options against 100,000 shoes, the strike rate will be the exact same, somewhere between 48 ~ 49%, because the strike percentage is determined on the number of actual bets placed, not the number of hands overall. Hope I explained that without coming across like asymacgay.

Ok, so now you might be thinking, what's the diff'

Considering the two options above, if you are betting 25 hands per shoe or 12 hands per shoe, which option do you think will pose the player more grief when it comes to handling loss strings? This does not exclude the possibility of the least betting option of not presenting difficult loss strings.

Also throw into the mix, once you can define your nemesis pattern, what is the expected frequency of occurrence? (how often are you going to get sucker punched playing DBL for example)

We know FLD will resolve pretty close to 47~48% over a large data set, but as we know already, you are going to endure a pretty rough ride if you bet every hand, the same applies equally to OLD. As it is, it is too difficult money management~wise to consider using either option and betting every hand.

Anti-Streak bet options lessens some of the sting of playing O.L.D.

You could, but for the reasons I outlined above, the more hands you bet in a shoe the wilder the variance swings will be, which then has consequences on your staking methodology.

 

The shoes over at the Wizards sites are RNG, the expected stats are the same as real decks.

 

My strike rate is just under 50% so any old cat is gonna get a similar rate, hey hey.

 

True if you isolate every shoe. But variance doesn't change as we accumulate bets.

 

The profits when you win the 30 unit parlay is 17 units (90-73=17 units) and not 10 units as shown.
3-2-1-0-2-3-3-5-5-6-7-7-17