Baccarat TWO SHOES

So not to be a hypocrite I will post and explain a couple of shoes I played today. Full disclosure. I knew I was going to post the shoes so I played pretty cautious conservative. I likely would NOT have stopped either shoe but, LOL, wanted to make sure I showed a decent win! I will explain these shoes.

First rule. Have a plan of attack!!!!!!!! Don't start without knowing what your goal is.

So the first shoe I started late and began by playing the bias with mostly flat betting. This is not my normal play and I'll explain why at some point during this thread. But I wanted to try to play sort of like what McVince is talking about. (I think I left a bunch of units on the table). Another player might have done a LOT better. These were $25.00 units and I really don't like this method. If I was playing
my normal way which I will explain I would have absolutely cleaned up! Grrrrr!

The second shoe I got in a little later than normal cause I went to the bathroom and quit t 51 units just because I knew I was going to post it and I didn't want to look bad. But. . . 51 units pretty good (these were $10.00 unit).

 

Not seeing the explanation. Is that coming?

 

Yeah it'll take a bit. This is not high on my priority. Let's look at the 5 unit shoe a bit.

Most shoes tend to be a mixed bag of junk. But I gauge the shoe by what one might call "normal." A mix of run lengths that end up in an even distribution within each shoe segment of about 9-18 decisions. All based on expected run lengths (18 -1's; 9-2's; etc.). But there is usually something that stands out and some stuff may not be obvious. I noticed by the second column that the chops (1's) were alternating from solo singles to multiple singles. I should have made a bet that the chop would alternate and it did. 2nd column P BB P B could have bet P one time and then after it continued PPP B P bet P to repeat then the player went PPP B P B P B BBB. So a bet one time for the red B. You see I did pick up one of them with a 2 unit bet and I did it for that reason.

The opposite might be true where all chops go 3 or more OR all chops (or most) stay at a "solo" single. That's just a small example of the things to look for. You might see repeat lengths on a specific side, etc.

In the above shoe we see no 2's and few chops where one would expect a few. So I picked 1>2 right away and it stayed pretty consistent. In this shoe I tried to stay "within the 1,2,3 as McVince mentioned just for the heck of it. A lot of guys would have bet 3<3 but I don't like that bet. Another bet that I generally like is the "longer still" bet which I didn't bet here. So one time bet 4>5 would have been a good bet IMO.

Again, this is not my way of playing. It takes patience and too much thinking! And it takes a lot of practice. I think it is best to hone in on certain common biases so as not to start chasing your tail. Look for certain bias and bet them only. I guess soe like a count to keep them grounded. A benchmark if you will. I use benchmark(s) for my normal play. I'll pick that up when I talk about the other shoe.

I think an un-weighted count would be just counting each run length and using that comparison to make a bet but you really don't need it. Pretty easy to see in this shoe but other may not be so obvious to the untrained eye.

Hope that explains a little.

 

Great job on the shoe. We have similar hit rates. We got a similar result but you exposed 20 units while betting 20 times where I only exposed 15 units betting 16.

 

Not trying to be a hypocrite.

 

Any win is a good win. There are other things sto look at in a shoe. I tried to hit some of them. If others have questions or comments I'll try to answer. If not . . . then not.

Maybe you'd like to opine on the bet palcements? Ones that you made, may differ on and why, etc.?

One thing though, if one has confidence that hit rates can be high AND LIAR low there is a greater advantage in using progressions, negative and/or positive.

 

So the next shoe I posted where I got bigger wins. I won't say a lot unless there is interest or discussion. Pro or con.

What I personally do is pick a a fixed bet placement that I think fits the shoe. Hard to get a read on a shoe that has no history so I should really wait a few hands. I don't generally. I will ordinarily just start with a simple follow bet placement. I'll start small units and until I choose my preferred placement. There are two I like but you could pick different ones. I sat down way too late cause I was away from the table. I chose XXYY as a bet placement because the shoe had some chops and was a little heavy in 2's by the time I started. It's a good placement unless you get caught out of sync with the 2's. Notice I skipped 2>3 at first to not get caught out of sync. But it does well with a lot of different patterns and even breaks up the long run as you can see in the last run of 5 IAR. That's all I'm going to say about it - practice it and see if you like it.

The other placement I like and use when the shoe is real streaky - few 1's and low on 2's is simply follow until lose and when you lose to a chop follow what it did before (did the chop go multiple or stay solo?). Hope that's clear. That's how I normally would have played the first shoe I posted. Play it yourself even flat bet and see how it did.

I will play most hands in a shoe until I quit. I will change the bet placement usually once only. If you see the "dot" on some of the plays you'll notice that I kept the placement but didn't make a bet. I see I'm not IN SYNC with the 2's. Sometimes I am and if so I win more BUT I don't change the placement because I don't want to start jumping around.

The unit is $10.00 in this shoe. I will often time just start increasing 1 unit win or lose and stop only if I lose 2 IAR. Here I got lucky but I didn't get greedy even though I won 7 IAR (wrote a W but it was a no bet - a little sloppy).

My betting is mostly taken from Stetson Bailey book. In general I am trying to drop a bet after a win to lock up a profit and increase bet after a loss. If I happen to be winning more hands than losing this is easy and I will freeze the bet and not drop down. But if my losses begin to exceed my wins I'm going to have to increase my bets. But I increase slowly to try not to get too deep in the hole. If I am winning I will drop down after some good wins and restart at a lower level. Here I got lucky. I had a LL W LL W LL W at end of shoe. I didn't bet last two but if I had it would be something like -3,-4 +5 -3, -5, +7, -5 -6, 7 for a loss of -7 units with a final win of +6 which was a double win for a total loss of only 1 unit on that last double win. That would have been a 40% win rate for those 10 hands with only a 1 unit loss! So if more losses come I got to keep my bets close to the last losing bet. When I get a few wins more than losses I'll recoup a little and try to bump up again.

At some point in tough shoes I will be making some pretty big bets. A couple things usually happen in tough shoes. Either I lose so I start next shoe with a little higher unit size; I get back most of my losses and simply start anew at a lower level; or I win some units. That way we can lose more hands than win and still make a decent profit. When we get shoes with 55-60% win rate we can make a lot of units.

Both of those shoe I won more hands than lost but I don't have to in order to win.

 

Negative progressions are suicide. That is my opinion and no one will change my mind on that. Positive progressions are ok. I use a cancelling out method which will increase my bet but I will never go higher than a 3 unit bet. My hit rate is very good and I am playing at a unit size where even if I walk away with a two or three unit win I will be happy. It is way better to wager a higher unit and settle for a +2,3,4 or 5 unit win than betting smaller and trying to hit the home run with a +20-25 unit win.

 

Ftrupor the most part I agree. I say for the most part because there are those who play them with success. In fact a method I posted some time ago on another site showed a 3+ net unit win for thousands of decisions from real life casino B&M data. No, it's not the "long run" but the standard deviation woud suggest the risk of ruin rather small.

I think the common misunderstanding is that a negative progression must entail "trying to hit the home run with a +20-25 unit win." This is not my style and I wouldn't recommend such to any but the most experienced and practiced players. And they do exist. Some I'm sure read this site. They can opine if they wish.

A positive progression is another tool that can be utilized but I think that most players won't succeed with such. Reason being is that most players are losing more hands then losing. In that case they will be experiencing more losses after a win than wins after a win. Simple.

However your own testimony is proof that Neg Progs can win. If one can win more hands than lose than most any NP will win. The only question is table minimums and bankroll availability. The real question as a practical matter is win% which controls variance. The higher the win % the lesser the variance (read draw downs) and vice versa. If you,for instance, are getting a very high shoe win rate flat betting your variance got to be really low. Keeping track of your cumulative win/loss registry will lead you to an optimum NP which will certainly improve $ per hour and shoes won %. And you need not bet smaller since there is no risk. Those are just mathematical facts. The math doesn't lie.

The big difference between your play and mine is that you're a spot player and need to win more hands than lose. Although I occasionally pick and choose I mostly just play a fixed placement over a specific data set (read pattern).

 

Yes I agree. Maybe we got off on the wrong foot lol. My fear is that if you are having a real bad day with a NP the result can be catastrophic. I don't know if I can mentally getting over a huge loss like that. It is hard for me to get over a 5 unit loss. I am even more conservative than I lead on. I start with half unit size bets. This helps in the cancelling out method. There are many ways to skin a cat. I am sure you are doing very well. I play with other professional players. We each play slightly different than each other. It is fun when we are different sides.

 

Neg. Prog. doesn't have to be mechanical. Any time one raises their bet after a loss they have begun a negative progression. Consider the D'Alembert which will win as long as winning decisions are equal or greater than losing decisions. The depth only depends on strike rate. The higher the strike rate the lesser hands LIAR. The less decisions LIAR the lesser escalation required. The real advantage is to increase a shoe win%.

The cancelling out method is basically a stretched NP popularized by LaBouchere. Whether one uses it modified or not it is still a NP. One popular way to modify it we used to use was simply make five flat bets and if losing jump to five 2 unit bets; restart with any win; 11111 22222 33333 44444 55555. So this is a modified version of LaBouchere. If that's the kind of thing you mean by "cancelling out method" then you are using a NP.

Not to be redundant but this again makes my point. As long as one is winning more hands than lose one cannot lose using most any progression. Though one must win enough to take care of commission as well. LOL

But all this is of no consequence to a player winning more hands than lose. The real question is can a NP profit when one loses more hands than win? The answer is simply yes. Enter Martingale. But table limits, if not intestinal fortitude, rules that out! How then?

Just as no mechanical bet placement will overcome the odds no mechanical progression will either. It all boils down to subjectivity doesn't it? Start with a benchmark and then adjust with conditions. In your case perhaps the unweighted count is the benchmark; in mine a specific placement is the benchmark. Not a lot of theoretical difference but a great deal of difference as a practical matter.
***********************
Sidebar: maybe there is interest in a discussion of weighted and underweight counts, maybe not? It goes back to Ellis in 2007 with the SAP (Self Adjusting Progression). I have notes somewhere.

 

Do you know where I can buy Stetson Baileys book? I’ve tried extensively to find it but to no avail. Any help is appreciated.

 

The real question is can a NP profit when one loses more hands than win? The answer is simply yes.
Regarding this question, you may want to explore “Oscars Grind”, it can lose more hands than it wins and still come out ahead.

 

No thanks. I'd rather watch paint dry than play Oscar. But you are woefully misinformed if you believe prpgresions can overcome the HA. Same goes for bet placements. Weighted counts, unweighted counts included.

zzzzzzzzzzzz. Enough of this nonsense.

 

Why are you so defensive?
I personally don’t play Oscar. I didn’t say progressions can overcome HA. I was just giving you some trivia about progressions and Oscar. However, I totally disagree with you about bet placement. There is a correct bet placement method and it is the ONLY way to win a shoe. Moreover it is learnable. I know you won’t agree with me because you probably have never seen a player win solely by bet placement and flat betting, but that’s what we do.

 

.
??? Defensive? I'm not defending anything. On the contrary, your remarks have consistently been about defending that BTC website and McVince. I think he can defend himself. LOL.

Listen roubac I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt because I don't think you understand what we're talking about here. A miscommunication perhaps.

You gotta understand the difference between a rule-based mechanical system as opposed to using a rule-based system and occasionally making subjective decisions in order to make changes because you understand that the rules alone won't overcome the HA.

If you think otherwise just PM me and we can make arrangements to play -15k a hand.

 

It’s ok bro, I don’t want to argue with you. We’re never going to see eye to eye. I respect your opinion. Let’s leave it at that. As long as we’re both winning, that’s all that matters.
Now, on another note. Where can I find baileys book?

 

I have several issues with your latest post ( And this should be a lesson to all the players learning this game ).

1. Money does not determine quality play. It determines that the guy has more money.
2. If you are playing 15k a hand I am sure you are flat betting.

If you are playing well with what you are doing that great!!!! If we are doing well with what we are doing (And we are) great!!!!!!!! Why does there have to be all this animosity about who's system is better????? Again, we are not selling or giving anything away on here as you are not. We can have creative differences and principles. We believe in a solid foundation and are very good at selectively betting and winning more hands than we lose. Our way is not for everyone just like your way is not for everyone. I have said this on BTC so many times, this game is 95% subjective. It is what you see that fits your eye. There is no magic formula or holy grail out there. I see you had a score card from CT. If you live in CT I will GLADLY meet you at one of those casinos.

 

I don't flat bet nor do I play 15k - but - there are people that play more than that and I can put you in touch with them. They're not in USA.

Why?

 

I thought we were having a discussion. I guess McVince put an end to it when he said the game is 95% subjective. A guessing game. But that doesn't mean you guess blind. A little structure is always helpful. I guess that's where the unbalanced count comes in. After that it's just a matter of making adjustments looking for bias strengths.

I don't where you can get the book. He is long dead. No matter. IMO a huge mistake to attempt recoup with huge progression bets. We need to move up and down in a manner that works with the W/L registry. That's what he discusses. It's still all a guess.