Jump to content

Horseshoe Casino, IN, Scorecards & Play


Recommended Posts

My question is money management:

Say you start with $25 units. If my aim is to just win 4 units per shoe at a risk of 8 units. I think 5 x 8 units is enough? or should i be safer and go 10x8 units?

At how many units should i actually go to $50 units? when i hit 80 units? or 160 units?

Well, that's really not a good way to look at it. Don't set any kind of goals before you see what you are up against in the casino. Your casino days will range anywhere from very easy (vivid biases) all the way to totally unplayable. You don't want to be setting a goal of 4 units and then end up in a shoe where you could have made an easy 30 units. Likewise, you don't want to be going for 4 units in a shoe where you should be quitting at +1.

The same with raising the stakes. NEVER do this at home before you get to the casino. That is suicidal. In a good shoe where you are winning most of your first prog bets (winning bets in a row), it is your duty to advance to the 234 then the 345 or even U1D2 M3 B2. See that? You already raised your unit didn't you but you did it in a safe way at an ideal time. It is all about taking advantage of situations but also knowing when to retreat.

Don't put yourself in with the class of player who always plays a specific unit - the guy who asks, "What unit size do you play?" They just don't get it. They are losers.

No, go by what the traffic will bear in the conditions you find yourself in. Sometimes you should be betting black. Other times you should be on your way home.

Edited by Guest
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 166
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • davelevad

    51

  • shuttlesmasher

    15

  • daytrader77459

    7

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Just one thing, just have been thinking, we have this great forum that can possibly give us an advantage in play. HOwever, these advantage players are banned at casinos. So if thats the case, is there

I just play online at Dublinbet because it is a brick and mortar casino. But unfortunately, I cannot find any any bias in the table. So I just select the system from the 8 to 20 first hands. I apply N

Hi, Davelevad, Yes, correct. My bad! In a hurry to post shoe for you - but great eye. Again, valuable to have multiple sets of eyes for study cases, reviews. I think the most important points are:

Well, that's really not a good way to look at it. Don't set any kind of goals before you see what you are up against in the casino. Your casino days will range anywhere from very easy (vivid biases) all the way to totally unplayable. You don't want to be setting a goal of 4 units and then end up in a shoe where you could have made an easy 30 units. Likewise, you don't want to be going for 4 units in a shoe where you should be quitting at +1.

The same with raising the stakes. NEVER do this at home before you get to the casino. That is suicidal. In a good shoe where you are winning most of your first prog bets (winning bets in a row), it is your duty to advance to the 234 then the 345 or even U1D2 M3 B2. See that? You already raised your unit didn't you but you did it in a safe way at an ideal time. It is all about taking advantage of situations but also knowing when to retreat.

Don't put yourself in with the class of player who always plays a specific unit - the guy who asks, "What unit size do you play?" They just don't get it. They are losers.

No, go by what the traffic will bear in the conditions you find yourself in. Sometimes you should be betting black. Other times you should be on your way home.

There was a thread long ago here where you said the same to me or someone else and I think above all else I have always remembered that.

Your advice to not establish a predetermined system or unit amount, unit goals, etc... before you even get inside the casino and have a look. Are today's conditions are good or bad? That makes a world of sense to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
shuttlesmasher

but the thing is. if you follow a 1,2,3 progression, if you lose 3 bets in a row (which is in effect a 1 in 8 chance/ ie in a 80 hand shoe, it is possible to happen 10 times)

you are already -6. so at a stop loss of -8 you arelady out if you miss 3 bets..

Link to post
Share on other sites
but the thing is. if you follow a 1,2,3 progression, if you lose 3 bets in a row (which is in effect a 1 in 8 chance/ ie in a 80 hand shoe, it is possible to happen 10 times)

you are already -6. so at a stop loss of -8 you arelady out if you miss 3 bets..

First, yes you would stop at -6 if all 3 bets were correct to the system and mode you selected, and you would look for a better table.

Correct, your odds are 1 in 8 of losing all three bets IF the cards are perfectly random. But you selected that table because its toteboard showed the strongest bias of any table available. If no table showed a bias you wouldn't play. You also only made the 3 bet because you already knew which Mode to play. That all makes your odds better than 7 out of 8. How much better depends on the strength of the bias.

So, the only way to lose the 123 is if the bias completely changed right then and there as soon as you started betting. So you don't usually go with the new bias, if any, because the table has just demonstrated that it is not stable. There are likely better tables. If not, go home.

By your odds you are suggesting play just like all the other players. They lose to the tune of 26%. That's the last thing you want to do. We play our way - they play theirs.

Dave suggests that the true odds are 50/50 less commission of 1.25% in random cards. Well, if that is true and the cards are purely random, exactly how does the average player find a way to lose at the rate of 26% of his buy in money??? He just beat the odds didn't he. But he did it in the wrong direction.

I'll tell you how they do it. By playing catch up. They bet that everything hehind will catch up. They end up betting chop in a streaky shoe and vice versa. If 1's or whatever are behind they bet they will catch up. While this DOES happen over the course of MANY shoes, it virtually never happens over the course of single shoes and that is how we play. We play single shoes.

There is a new Baccarat training course out sponsored by the casinos. It's run by yet another Harvard guy. Makes me wonder what Harvard does in its spare time. When you glance through it you quickly see that they are teaching you to play catch up. Well of course casinos would sponsor it. It teaches you to play just like the casinos want you to play. It guarantees their impossible 26%! Or, you could play OUR way and do exactly what the casinos DON'T want you to do. Which sounds better to you???

I'll find that link and post it for you. Just don't waste a lot of time over it. It's bullshit!

BTW, it irks me that they stole my line. They start right off by saying: "Be a Player, not a gambler." Then they proceed to teach you exactly how to be a gambler, not a player.

That's even worse than the movie 21 stealing my trademark BJ seminar opening - the shell game.

This gives you an idea why casinos won't let me do seminars at their casinos. But note the let this Harvard guy do his there. I wonder why that is? Ha!

Here is that web site:

http://www.macaucasinoworld.com/baccarat-great-learning

Edited by Guest
Link to post
Share on other sites
shuttlesmasher

Well, I had plans to go to the local casino tonight and test out to see if i was patient enough to lose 8 units. Well after 15 minutes i was 6 units up, (my target was 4 units) but stayed on to play.

The shoe had started oTbl friendly then to TBl friendly then back to OTBL friendly. It was all over the shop. I was the only player that sat from the beginning of the shoe, to the end. I had finished the shoe -8. everyone else, had lost so much that they were all cleaned out. They kept on changing their money and kept on losing...it wasn't pretty shoe for sure.

however, i managed to square off on the next shoe and ended the session. +1. Get out of there!!!!

q.e.d. aim for my target 4 units and get out....

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a new Baccarat training course out sponsored by the casinos. It's run by yet another Harvard guy. Makes me wonder what Harvard does in its spare time. When you glance through it you quickly see that they are teaching you to play catch up. Well of course casinos would sponsor it. It teaches you to play just like the casinos want you to play. It guarantees their impossible 26%! Or, you could play OUR way and do exactly what the casinos DON'T want you to do. Which sounds better to you???

I'll find that link and post it for you. Just don't waste a lot of time over it. It's bullshit!

BTW, it irks me that they stole my line. They start right off by saying: "Be a Player, not a gambler." Then they proceed to teach you exactly how to be a gambler, not a player.

That's even worse than the movie 21 stealing my trademark BJ seminar opening - the shell game.

This gives you an idea why casinos won't let me do seminars at their casinos. But note the let this Harvard guy do his there. I wonder why that is? Ha!

Here is that web site:

http://www.macaucasinoworld.com/baccarat-great-learning

Yeah, I spend a lot of time testing this "Harvard" approach. (Actually, I called Harvard several times to try to verify whether Zuan Xin and David Soffer were actually alumni, but they never got back to me.)

Simulation Results:

Baccarat Simulation Series 30 Results: Zuan Xin Baccarat Great Learning

Discussion:

Does A Harvard Education Help You Win Baccarat?

I have a lot of email correspondence from David Sofer, and the last one after I posted the results at ImSpirit was the following:

Many thanks for the information.

Here is what I have to say about this.

This is a very cynical age we live in, some even call it a "neurotic epoch" of history. Everybody questions everybody's intentions, it's the way it is, but it is a free world, and I have absolutely no complaints about it and would have it no other way.

And if someone wants to criticize someone else, at any level of detail or analysis, that's perfectly okay, too, but it is up to people to weigh all of the arguments and to assess the methods and motives underlying them.

The problem with this instant analysis is that it has very little to do with how Baccarat gamblers actually gamble at Baccarat, no one does play or should play "robotically" at Baccarat or any other casino table game for that matter.

As for me, I am one of the best followers of Zuan Xin and very proud to say so, he has made a contribution to the Baccarat literature that is unparalleled, many many thousands of Baccarat gamblers across the world, many of them serious gambling addicts who lose a lot of money that nobody can afford to lose, have become Baccarat players by studying his teachings online that are available free of charge at MacauCasinoWorld.

Please see the following chart of Macau casino Baccarat winnings.

http://www.dicj.gov.mo/web/en/information/DadosEstat/2010/content.html#n3

http://www.dicj.gov.mo/web/en/information/DadosEstat_mensal/2010/index.html

http://www.dicj.gov.mo/web/en/information/DadosEstat_mensal/2011/index.html

All analytics aside, this is an epidemic, and that is what Zuan Xin was interested in impacting. Trillions of Hong Kong dollars will be wagered in the Baccarat rooms of the world this year! And tens of billions will be lost!

You should know, that those who have actually participated in special learnings have been for the most part very happy that they did, it is a large commitment of time and effort to conduct a special learning properly and that is why tuition has to be charged. Everyone that inquires is urged first to study harder and more rigorously, most never contact us again, and that's what we want. Special learnings are not an ongoing business.

The Baccarat Great Learning, "Baijialedaxue" in Chinese, is constantly misunderstood to be a "system" and it is not that at all. What Zuan Xin did was reveal the deep underlying mathematical structure of a game that both the Baccarat casino professionals and their casino gambler "customers" generally believe is a game of luck with no underlying mathematical structure.

Attached please find the classic saying of one of the Asian "gods of gambling" Dai Zilang to that effect, also an article that was published by Sing Tao in December 2007.

Those who practice "best quality discipline" using the "Baijialedaxue" of Zuan Xin play very carefully and very conservatively after selecting the shoes that they will play very diligently, this is what Zuan Xin teaches, in the same way Edward O. Thorp used his "Beat the Dealer" approach to Blackjack very carefully and very conservatively.

I would close by advising you that the large casino companies all employ "mathematical consultants" who have torn apart every table game that you see on the casino floor from virtually every mathematical angle and brought about the implementation of countermeasures against any and every approach that conveys even the possibility of advantage play.

Zuan Xin has never claimed that he developed a "system" that can be played "robotically" and defeat the casinos at their most important and most profitable table game of Baccarat, but for the many many thousands of followers of his Baccarat Great Learning worldwide, the Baccarat playing field has been leveled.

I think Oscar Wilde once said that the cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing, all of us should remember that, we should question people's intentions when there are grounds for that and full understanding underlying such grounds, but there is no virtue in cynicism for cynicism's sake.

Thanks again for writing in to me, and I hope that these comments have been helpful for you.

As our Baccarat master Zuan Xin said, "Be a player, not a gambler!"

Best regards,

David Sofer

(By the way, Sofer teaches Zuan Xin's bacc method in Los Angeles for $888. It's a two-day, one-on-one course called "Special Learnings," consisting of lectures/exercises, and afterwards going to a casino to play. Not that anyone here would be interested in that, LOL.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I had plans to go to the local casino tonight and test out to see if i was patient enough to lose 8 units. Well after 15 minutes i was 6 units up, (my target was 4 units) but stayed on to play.

The shoe had started oTbl friendly then to TBl friendly then back to OTBL friendly. It was all over the shop. I was the only player that sat from the beginning of the shoe, to the end. I had finished the shoe -8. everyone else, had lost so much that they were all cleaned out. They kept on changing their money and kept on losing...it wasn't pretty shoe for sure.

however, i managed to square off on the next shoe and ended the session. +1. Get out of there!!!!

q.e.d. aim for my target 4 units and get out....

I have a real hard time making a bet that could take me below+1 after I'm up +6. Also I don't know about having a stop loss higher than your stop win. You've put yourself in the position of having to win significantly more that 50% of your shoes just to break even. I much prefer it the other way around. Just food for thought.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, I spend a lot of time testing this "Harvard" approach. (Actually, I called Harvard several times to try to verify whether Zuan Xin and David Soffer were actually alumni, but they never got back to me.)

Simulation Results:

Baccarat Simulation Series 30 Results: Zuan Xin Baccarat Great Learning

............................................................................................................................................................................

As our Baccarat master Zuan Xin said, "Be a player, not a gambler!"

Best regards,

David Sofer

............................................................................................................................................................................

(By the way, Sofer teaches Zuan Xin's bacc method in Los Angeles for $888. It's a two-day, one-on-one course called "Special Learnings," consisting of lectures/exercises, and afterwards going to a casino to play. Not that anyone here would be interested in that, LOL.)

I only looked into this at the request of one of our members as follows:

"Dear Ellis, please review this website, ESPECIALLY LESSONS 3 and 4.

http://www.macaucasinoworld.com/baccarat-great-learning

Kindest Regards, Jphn"

I only gave this thing a 5 minute glance. That is all I needed! It's phony baloney pure and simple. It borders on Plagiarism.

The first thing I see is My own Normal Frequency of Occurrence math from 20 years ago regurgitated as some higher form of Harvard/Zen mathematics staring me in the face. Guys this is simple 9th grade Calculus, if even that.

The next thing I see is my own SAP chart from ten years ago converted to a horizontal score card.

And I see my own line "Be a Player, not a Gambler" from my book NBJ written in the '80s used as their opening argument.

But at that point all similarity (copying) stops and they take a major turn in the wrong direction. They tell you to bet AGAINST the biases instead of WITH the biases. It's like they couldn't even copy correctly. I knew right then and there with no testing necessary that this approach would be a disaster. It's freaking backwards!

I didn't realize this was the same approach Dave tested. But if you take a quick look at Dave's results (very complete testing I might add) you see nothing but MINUS signs averaging close to a NEGATIVE 3% Player Advantage. In a long list of test scores there is NEVER a single PLUS sign.

Guys, it takes a real skill to lose that consistently in a 50/50 game! - Just not the kind of skill you want to possess.

But you know what they say: "If you find a consistenly bad system just bet dead against it".

And since we do virtually the exact opposite of what they recommend, I think Dave's tests go a long way toward proving my view of this game. So perhaps they weren't in vain after all.

Aside from their plagiarism I also take major exception to their namedropping of Edward O Thorp and his book Beat the Dealer. I have studied Thorp intensely and NOTHING they attribute to him is correct. In fact it is almost dead opposite to what Thorp actually portends.

I also take major exception to their use of the Asian Baccarat epedemic to their own personal gain.

I'll be quite surprised if it turns out these guys are Harvard products. These guys are very professional scammers and plagiarists. They likely come from jail, not Yale.

Edited by Guest
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it sounds like sour grapes at this point but I can't conceive it as coincidence that someone on his own could come up with the exact same line "Be a player not a gambler" 20 years after the fact. Nor can I conceive of someone accidentally coming up with an SAP chart on their own. People THAT smart would be too smart to then do the whole thing backwards in actual practice.

And then note that all through the whole program they keep telling you that everything is free and then they spring this huge "We're sorry about that" charge on you at the very end. And then all the ridiculous name dropping all the way through. These guys are pros. You'd think they would have tested their system up front. You know what, I'll bet they DID! I'll bet they already knew their system didn't work. Oh yeah, I forgot, it's "not a system". It's some freaking Chinese magic or whatever. Bullshit! It's a very American scam!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't realize this was the same approach Dave tested. But if you take a quick look at Dave's results (very complete testing I might add) you see nothing but MINUS signs averaging close to a NEGATIVE 3% Player Advantage. In a long list of test scores there is NEVER a single PLUS sign.

Guys, it takes a real skill to lose that consistently in a 50/50 game! - Just not the kind of skill you want to possess.

But you know what they say: "If you find a consistenly bad system just bet dead against it".

And since we do virtually the exact opposite of what they recommend, I think Dave's tests go a long way toward proving my view of this game. So perhaps they weren't in vain after all.

Actually, betting opposite a losing system does not yield a winning one. For example, betting Player Always is a losing system, and betting its exact opposite (betting Banker Always) is also a losing system. Likewise, betting Repeat Always is a losing system, and betting its exact opposite (betting Opposite Always) is also a losing system. Etc ... for any other system or combination of switching between systems.

Indeed, part of my testing of Xin/Sofer's system was to bet exactly opposite its bet placements, and the results were still negative. (See the results in the tables "1M Normal" and "1M Reversed" at http://imspirit.wordpress.com/2011/03/07/baccarat-simulation-series-30-results-zuan-xin-baccarat-great-learning/)

The only reason why I tested the reverse bets was because one of my readers noted that in my original table, I had -4% in some of the results, quite remarkable, because he thought it's just as hard to consistently lose more than expected as it is to consistently win. He would be right if only flat bets were used. But in the tests, I used a 1,1,3,6 progression, per their methodology. When a Martingale-type of progression is used, worse-than-expected results can occur in a relatively small sample size, due to the larger bets losing more often than winning. I tried to convince him of that, but he kept insisting, and finally I just had to do the simulation outright to demonstrate reversing the bets does not help. (See the exchange of comments in the reply below the post.)

So, the statement "Dave's tests go a long way toward proving my view of this game" is not true. Normal or reversed, Xin/Sofer's method yield the usual negative expectancies, and taking my results at face value, they technically disprove your view of the game.

But of course, as Sofer acknowledged in his reply, and as you have acknowledged as well, my simulations don't take into account the kind of live casino conditions which both of you believe exist (though at opposite ends of the spectrum), so I can't make any firm conclusions about the game played under live conditions purely on the basis of my simulation results. Nevertheless, my simulation results (thus far) certainly cannot be construed to support your views. I would very much like that one day I'm able to run a simulation which actually demonstrates a positive expectancy, but that day is yet to come.

To support your views would require someone to be able to win a significant number of live games consistently. We'll take it for granted that you have been able to in your decades of professional play. But so far, I'm finding it not so easy to reproduce your success, because I'm not seeing the consistency and stability of shoes which are part of the basic requirements of your edge. I sure would like to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
hey ellis if

I have a real hard time making a bet that could take me below+1 after I'm up +6.

then would stop win be +6???

No, but you are starting to get the right idea. Go for +9 or +10 with a 123 prog. The problem with continuing after +9 is sometimes you go back to 0 trying to make that one stupid unit as many here, including Dave, can tell you. A 123 4 is really only good for about + 10. A 234 and/or 345 is good for +20, sometimes +30. An U1D2M3B2 is good for +30 sometimes 40.

+4 is more of a flat bet target. But -8 is too big a loss to go along with +4. -8 is designed to go along with +10. But -8 is also an excellent overall stop loss because you are not going to advance from a 123 4 unless you are considerably ahead. Get it? In other words, you need a somewhat grander outlook. You can be over conservative to the point that you eliminate any chance of winning overall.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, betting opposite a losing system does not yield a winning one. For example, betting Player Always is a losing system, and betting its exact opposite (betting Banker Always) is also a losing system. Likewise, betting Repeat Always is a losing system, and betting its exact opposite (betting Opposite Always) is also a losing system. Etc ... for any other system or combination of switching between systems.

Indeed, part of my testing of Xin/Sofer's system was to bet exactly opposite its bet placements, and the results were still negative. (See the results in the tables "1M Normal" and "1M Reversed" at http://imspirit.wordpress.com/2011/03/07/baccarat-simulation-series-30-results-zuan-xin-baccarat-great-learning/)

The only reason why I tested the reverse bets was because one of my readers noted that in my original table, I had -4% in some of the results, quite remarkable, because he thought it's just as hard to consistently lose more than expected than it is to consistently win. He would be right if only flat bets were used. But in the tests, I used a 1,1,3,6 progression, per their methodology. When a Martingale-type of progression is used, worse-than-expected results can occur in a relatively small sample size, due to the larger bets losing more often than winning. I tried to convince him of that, but he kept insisting, and finally I just had to do the simulation outright to demonstrate reversing the bets does not help. (See the exchange of comments in the reply below the post.)

So, the statement "Dave's tests go a long way toward proving my view of this game" is not true. Normal or reversed, Xin/Sofer's method yield the usual negative expectancies, and taking my results at face value, they technically disprove your view of the game.

But of course, as Sofer acknowledged in his reply, and as you have acknowledged as well, my simulations don't take into account the kind of live casino conditions which both of you believe exist (though at opposite ends of the spectrum), so I can't make any firm conclusions about the game played under live conditions purely on the basis of my simulation results. Nevertheless, my simulation results (thus far) certainly cannot be construed to support your views. I would very much like that one day I'm able to run a simulation which actually demonstrates a positive expectancy, but that day is yet to come.

To support your views would require someone to be able to win a significant number of live games consistently. We'll take it for granted that you have been able to in your decades of professional play. But so far, I'm finding it not so easy to reproduce your success, because I'm not seeing the consistency and stability of shoes which are part of the basic requirements of your edge. I sure would like to.

Right, good points Dave! I think part of your problem is that you have not yet had the opportunity to look in the right places at the right times. I suspect that Gold Coast may be an eye opening experience. But there are never any guarantees in this game - even under the best of conditions.

I wonder if in testing you should ignore commission??? As an impurity. I think I mentioned to you once that Horseshoe Vegas experimented with eliminating commission altogether. It made virtually no difference in their overall bottom line. What they lost in commission they made up for in games played.

However, when you totally remove commission, casinos have a very hard time explaining how they STILL win at large profits or, in fact how they win at all. Any thoughts on that?

While non-playing mathematicians think they have totally debunked Markum's quit while you are ahead theory it would seem to me that the same math would also debunk quit while you are behind theory. I also note that mathematicians are at a loss trying to explain Maccau's continued higher than expected profits. Yet the casino doesn't seem surprised at all. Any thoughts?

But I'm not in total agreement with you. If you eliminate the effect of commission then betting DEAD opposite a losing system would have to produce a positive result. Would it not? You can't have it both ways.

And how to you explain the 26% of drop figure Vegas casinos have peported in recent years? Also, I highly suspect the 26% is low balled because corporate accountants first take everything including the kitchen sink out of a taxable number before reporting it. Remember that I am a product of the corporations. For instance, escrow against possible future losses from player cheating.

Edited by Guest
Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, I think that a 1136 is quite stupid. If they suspect a positive overall result why bet a prog that anticipates always losing the 2nd bet??? Makes no sense to me. But it would make sense if they expected a negative result - Cut your losses.

Link to post
Share on other sites
shuttlesmasher

Its very simple this 26% drop....

All can be explained by players mentality.

OK an individual may take $1000 into the casino. Start playing $25.

hits a bad run and loses $300 , betting maybe, 1,2 or 3 units

Left with $700. Do you think he will continue with $25 units?

or do they up the bets to try to win it back quickly? so perhaps bet $50,. hits -8 -10 unit. thats $400/$500 down further. $800 gone.

$200 left.....one bet....lost.

there goes $1k

Link to post
Share on other sites
Its very simple this 26% drop....

All can be explained by players mentality.

OK an individual may take $1000 into the casino. Start playing $25.

hits a bad run and loses $300 , betting maybe, 1,2 or 3 units

Left with $700. Do you think he will continue with $25 units?

or do they up the bets to try to win it back quickly? so perhaps bet $50,. hits -8 -10 unit. thats $400/$500 down further. $800 gone.

$200 left.....one bet....lost.

there goes $1k

Great! Then it shouldn't be hard to find such a player and bet dead against him! If its 50/50, how does he go about losing all his bets? Ha one way is to bet against biases instead of with them.

Edited by Guest
Link to post
Share on other sites
Right, good points Dave! I think part of your problem is that you have not yet had the opportunity to look in the right places at the right times. I suspect that Gold Coast may be an eye opening experience. But there are never any guarantees in this game - even under the best of conditions.

I wonder if in testing you should ignore commission??? As an impurity. I think I mentioned to you once that Horseshoe Vegas experimented with eliminating commission altogether. It made virtually no difference in their overall bottom line. What they lost in commission they made up for in games played.

However, when you totally remove commission, casinos have a very hard time explaining how they STILL win at large profits. Any thoughts on that?

While non-playing mathematicians think they have totally debunked Markum's quit while you are ahead theory it would seem to me that the same math would also debunk quit while you are behind theory. I also note that mathematicians are at a loss trying to explain Maccau's continued higher than expected profits. Yet the casino doesn't seem surprised at all. Any thoughts?

With regards to being in the right place at the right time, that is definitely what I would like to be able to consistently do, and it is the fundamental prerequisite of someone hoping to have a consistent, positive edge. Those should be the only conditions under which to play, otherwise, it's just gambling with the usual long term negative expectancies. If only we can figure out how to systematically be at the right place at the right time.

With regards to entirely omitting commissions from my testing, by far the best system to play without commissions is Bet Banker Always. That would definitely yield a positive expectancy in the long run (without commish.) Any bets on Player would just diminish the yield in the long run. Best to just stick to one side Banker always. Of course, risk-of-ruin always exists, because no one has deep enough pockets to withstand all drawdowns in practice. But in terms of long term expectancies, Banker is always the best long term bet. (By the way, "no commission" EZ Bacc like the one we played together at Trump Plaza, AC, is not truly no commissions, since you push on a 3-card Banker 7. This still gives the House a 1ish% edge on Banker in the long run.)

With regards to casino profits/holds and mathematical expectations, my thoughts are just that most people who play the game are "gamblers," not "players." At least that is what I see when I go to the tables. Very few are betting systematically, and virtually none are flat betting. Most of them bet all over the place ... this hand 1 chip, next hand 10 chips, next hand all in. Moreover, they're betting the side bets, like tie and dragons, which have much higher House edge. I've seen people place stacks a mile high on tie. From what I've seen, most of them lose all of their buy-in relatively quickly, which is technically a 100% hold. They simply don't have enough bankroll to keep betting into the realm of "long term." The mathematical expectancies of 1ish% would only occur if everyone always flat bet systematically, and only on P/B. In reality, that happens rarely. If mathematicians are puzzled why casinos holds are so large, I think it's just because they haven't gone to the tables themselves and watched how the majority are gambling. It truly is a spectacle.

I was talking to Tom about this the other day. He explained ...

HOLD measures the % of the money that is won by the table for any given time period. More specifically: Total$$ won by that table divided by amount of money dropped down the chute. Kind of a difficult thing to explain, but a few simplified examples will help: For these examples imagine a bac table with only 1 customer for the entire shift: Customer comes to table & buys in for $100, and plays for an hour lets say:

Breaks dead even & leaves = 0% hold for that shift

Looses $20 & leaves = 20% hold for that shift

Wins $20 & leaves = negative 20% Hold for that shift

Looses $80 = 80% hold

Looses entire $100 buyin = 100% hold for that shift

If you watch closely you can see the supervisors & pit bosses get mad when a player comes to the table, buys in for a large amount like $2000 or $5000, makes a couple small bets & leaves. Why do they care? They know he just screwed up their hold % for that shift. If the rest of the players are small bettors & they would have scored a 30% hold for that shift, then that guy just cut their HOLD % down to 3 %. Still the same gross amount of $$ won by the table but divided by that larger amount = hold % down.

That's why I almost always bring chips to the table with me & rarely buy in for cash. I may take a few of their chips home with me but I won't be hurting their hold % anywhere near as much as if I had bought in for cash. I like the tables I regularly play at to have a nice high HOLD % (love those tie bettors:-).

So hold % is really a measure of how long people stay at a table & gamble, what type of bets they placed (tie vs. Banker), and how lucky or unlucky the table was if measuring a short time-frame like 1 shift. That's why a bac table can have a much higher hold % than a roulette table, --- people stay there longer (and tie bettors, of course).

No HOLD % would surprise me very much, even with a fairly long time frame like 3 months. There are alot of factors at play. Some casinos cater to whales (very large bettors) who can drastically change a casino's bac hold for the quarter. I hear Kerry Packer likes to play bac @ 1/4 mil per hand. Pit bosses under ever increasing pressure to produce could conceivably fudge some numbers. Possibly dragon betting was introduced durring the time frame of the study? Maybe more people were betting tie? Maybe people started staying at the tables longer?

Just glanced @ a 2010 UNLV study that was done on a New Jersey casino that I had looked at before.. Not sure if it was the same one you are referring to. Actually, in that study pg 5 shows the win % declining on a yearly basis from 05 to 09. Bounced up in '10 but far less data.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Great! Then it shouldn't be hard to find such a player and bet dead against him! If its 50/50, how does he go about losing all his bets?

Simply because 50/50 is in the long term. These gamblers bust long before approaching that realm.

On the other hand, I've personally witnessed pure gamblers win left and right. Ironically, the last time it happened was during my last session in the first shoe (the "shoe from hell.") I wrote at ImSpirit:

As I mentioned in my response to Rick’s comment, yesterday was a day when Luck won over Method, because the guy sitting next to me in the first shoe was winning by truly “gambling,†wagering huge stacks on purely intuitive guesses. He was quite a showman, too. Most of the time, as it turned out, he was betting against me, and hence was winning left and right. He even won 2 dragons in a row. He walked away with several dozen times his buy-in. Later, other folks must have also noticed how much I was losing, and they started to bet against me, too. Lucky them. Now I know what it feels like to be the dupe in the “bet against the loser†method. (ImSpirit: Cause for Pause)

Link to post
Share on other sites
With regards to being in the right place at the right time, that is definitely what I would like to be able to consistently do, and it is the fundamental prerequisite of someone hoping to have a consistent, positive edge. Those should be the only conditions under which to play, otherwise, it's just gambling with the usual long term negative expectancies. If only we can figure out how to systematically be at the right place at the right time.

With regards to entirely omitting commissions from my testing, by far the best system to play without commissions is Bet Banker Always. That would definitely yield a positive expectancy in the long run (without commish.) Any bets on Player would just diminish the yield in the long run. Best to just stick to one side Banker always. Of course, risk-of-ruin always exists, because no one has deep enough pockets to withstand all drawdowns in practice. But in terms of long term expectancies, Banker is always the best long term bet. (By the way, "no commission" EZ Bacc like the one we played together at Trump Plaza, AC, is not truly no commissions, since you push on a 3-card Banker 7. This still gives the House a 1ish% edge on Banker in the long run.)

With regards to casino profits/holds and mathematical expectations, my thoughts are just that most people who play the game are "gamblers," not "players." At least that is what I see when I go to the tables. Very few are betting systematically, and virtually none are flat betting. Most of them bet all over the place ... this hand 1 chip, next hand 10 chips, next hand all in. Moreover, they're betting the side bets, like tie and dragons, which have much higher House edge. I've seen people place stacks a mile high on tie. From what I've seen, most of them lose all of their buy-in relatively quickly, which is technically a 100% hold. They simply don't have enough bankroll to keep betting into the realm of "long term." The mathematical expectancies of 1ish% would only occur if everyone always flat bet systematically, and only on P/B. In reality, that happens rarely. If mathematicians are puzzled why casinos holds are so large, I think it's just because they haven't gone to the tables themselves and watched how the majority are gambling. It truly is a spectacle.

I was talking to Tom about this the other day. He explained ...

HOLD measures the % of the money that is won by the table for any given time period. More specifically: Total$$ won by that table divided by amount of money dropped down the chute. Kind of a difficult thing to explain, but a few simplified examples will help: For these examples imagine a bac table with only 1 customer for the entire shift: Customer comes to table & buys in for $100, and plays for an hour lets say:

Breaks dead even & leaves = 0% hold for that shift

Looses $20 & leaves = 20% hold for that shift

Wins $20 & leaves = negative 20% Hold for that shift

Looses $80 = 80% hold

Looses entire $100 buyin = 100% hold for that shift

If you watch closely you can see the supervisors & pit bosses get mad when a player comes to the table, buys in for a large amount like $2000 or $5000, makes a couple small bets & leaves. Why do they care? They know he just screwed up their hold % for that shift. If the rest of the players are small bettors & they would have scored a 30% hold for that shift, then that guy just cut their HOLD % down to 3 %. Still the same gross amount of $$ won by the table but divided by that larger amount = hold % down.

That's why I almost always bring chips to the table with me & rarely buy in for cash. I may take a few of their chips home with me but I won't be hurting their hold % anywhere near as much as if I had bought in for cash. I like the tables I regularly play at to have a nice high HOLD % (love those tie bettors:-).

So hold % is really a measure of how long people stay at a table & gamble, what type of bets they placed (tie vs. Banker), and how lucky or unlucky the table was if measuring a short time-frame like 1 shift. That's why a bac table can have a much higher hold % than a roulette table, --- people stay there longer (and tie bettors, of course).

No HOLD % would surprise me very much, even with a fairly long time frame like 3 months. There are alot of factors at play. Some casinos cater to whales (very large bettors) who can drastically change a casino's bac hold for the quarter. I hear Kerry Packer likes to play bac @ 1/4 mil per hand. Pit bosses under ever increasing pressure to produce could conceivably fudge some numbers. Possibly dragon betting was introduced durring the time frame of the study? Maybe more people were betting tie? Maybe people started staying at the tables longer?

Just glanced @ a 2010 UNLV study that was done on a New Jersey casino that I had looked at before.. Not sure if it was the same one you are referring to. Actually, in that study pg 5 shows the win % declining on a yearly basis from 05 to 09. Bounced up in '10 but far less data.

Yes! All excellent points Dave! And Valid!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether BJ or Bac, the real name of the game is putting yourself in the right place at the right time. This is far easier in AC than any place else. You can actually go to several different casinos W/O getting wet on a rainy day and there are so many casinos and tables to choose from.

Vegas used to be easy but now getting from casino to casino is a real chore.

Tunica doesn't have enough Bac tables overall.

Anywhere else is a real challenge.

Dave, you really didn't get to see any of that in AC because we were playing based on a player rumor. It just turned out to be true.

But I owe my success in AC full time play to being in the right place on the right day at the right time. But that took a LOT of research. I actually spent more time on research than I did actually playing. But it really paid off.

Also, once you get the feel of a good game you know to get out of bad games a whole lot quicker - very often after only 3 bets and sometimes even less. On the other hand, I've stayed in good games for as long as 17 hours W/O a losing shoe. Ha, can't do that anymore.

And also the Bac games were MUCH quicker then. We averaged a shoe an hour at 14 player tables. Nobody screwed around with the cards.

I played an 8 deck head to head BJ shoe well short of 10 minutes a shoe. One thing about head to head BJ is if they weren't already, the cards will soon become random. For me this presented a virtual can't lose situation.

And, they didn't close tables. All tables were open all the time. Head to head games were easy to find.

We won't ever see those days again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Whether BJ or Bac, the real name of the game is putting yourself in the right place at the right time. This is far easier in AC than any place else. You can actually go to several different casinos W/O getting wet on a rainy day and there are so many casinos and tables to choose from.

Vegas used to be easy but now getting from casino to casino is a real chore.

Tunica doesn't have enough Bac tables overall.

Anywhere else is a real challenge.

Dave, you really didn't get to see any of that in AC because we were playing based on a player rumor. It just turned out to be true.

But I owe my success in AC full time play to being in the right place on the right day at the right time. But that took a LOT of research. I actually spent more time on research than I did actually playing. But it really paid off.

Also, once you get the feel of a good game you know to get out of bad games a whole lot quicker - very often after only 3 bets and sometimes even less. On the other hand, I've stayed in good games for as long as 17 hours W/O a losing shoe. Ha, can't do that anymore.

And also the Bac games were MUCH quicker then. We averaged a shoe an hour at 14 player tables. Nobody screwed around with the cards.

I played an 8 deck head to head BJ shoe well short of 10 minutes a shoe. One thing about head to head BJ is if they weren't already, the cards will soon become random. For me this presented a virtual can't lose situation.

And, they didn't close tables. All tables were open all the time. Head to head games were easy to find.

We won't ever see those days again.

I got back from AC from my two and half day excursion there. I stayed at the TAJ MAHAL. I have played there previously but not stayed, its a real nice property. It was raining on mid day Tuesday, so I thought I just hang at the Taj and see if I could find a table that had some exploitable tendencies as Papa Joe and many others talk about here. There are only two tote boards that are employed by the Taj, and just like its sister casino, TRAMP PLAZA, its of the EZ Baccarat variety with no commission. One table was showing F series as the play style that should be employed. It was mid shoe, and just by flat betting I made three units. I just wanted to get my feet wet. I played a couple more shoes at that point still flat betting and made 6 more, so I had nine altogether. After a dinner break , I did more aisle viewing and saw that the same table had more of the same type of F2 tendency. This time, I went with the basic 1,2,3 progression. I made 7 in first game and had six more in second. And I called it a night. I wanted to come out in profitable position so I wasn't pressing to make a killing. My second day morning I went back to same table and I saw once again F2 so I jumped and in mid shoe range. Between that and new shoe I had another 10..Hey, this is great day.

Sinceon Wednesday the weather was nice, I wanted to go and venture out a bit. I decided to go to visit the Golden Nugget, which was the old Trump Marina and purchased by the Nugget crew this past February. The interior is being dressed up nicely with more to come this fall. The baccarat area has 4 tables, all of the EZ No commission variety. Oh great, they have more tote boards to view. Only two tables were in action, since area schools opened that day and not that many people we around in the Bac area. One table was packed but the shoe was all over the place. showed streaks, P and B single chops, then neutrality reigned. Wasn't touching it. But the next table with just one person sitting there ( a beautiful Asian women ok so I digress lol) and the tote board is showing a few 3's, 2- 5 runs and 2- 4 runs with 2/3 of the shoe already done. Not really many two or ones were showing. Hey, this could be interesting so lets jump in. I started flat betting 2 units of 25 dollars. I netted 4, went back and forth for 4 more decisions,then hit 6 players in a row. I had 16 then lost next bet and netted 14 and the shoe was was kind nearing completion. I could have gone further. The table went on to give one more of a run of 6 Players. But, I am thinking I haven't been here long and I have 14..Can't go broke that way.

Back at Taj Thursday morning before leaving. Same table I played on Tuesday and Weds showing F2. Went with a 1,2,3 mode made 4 that shoe and stopped when I hit 8 on the next. I was looking to make 10 altogether. And so I did, and I was a happy camper.

There are several casinos with tote boards in AC. I need to be patient when i go there..I made out fine this time because the opportunity was there where I was staying. But, if its not at that 1 casino. I love to walk so I will just go one from one casino to the next until I find THE ONE TABLE that screams out at me. I have an incredible arsenal of tools to work with. I am feeling more comfortable with NOR and table selection. I want to learn how to detect going and when to really take advantage of situation. I am a bit cloudy on how and when to use 1,2,3 and move on to a 2,3,4 and then the 3,4,5 progressions..

I would like to thank each and every one of you for helping me during my trip. You were not physically there but everything you all post I read and digest. Aisle viewing and table selection is a fine art, Ellis. I have a long way to go mastering it,but I will continue to work on it.

Ciao

Joey

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
shuttlesmasher

Nice joey, nice!!! hope we can all get to that stage one day...just a question though. when do you cease betting and watch? 2 consecutive losses?

or say you detected a mode of the shoe, would you continue through even 2 consecutive losses?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nice joey, nice!!! hope we can all get to that stage one day...just a question though. when do you cease betting and watch? 2 consecutive losses?

or say you detected a mode of the shoe, would you continue through even 2 consecutive losses?

I would hit the "pause" button when I lost two in a row. I would sit there and see some decisions played out to see if the shoe was aligning to the mode I was playing. I think that does help me out a lot. Its has been mentioned by others that there will be another decision that we will able to play, or another shoe, or table to play. And things don't align right, we can always come back another day. I am trying to slow the game down, rather than forcing myself to bet when things are not going my way. I have been guilty of that in the past. If I didn't know what the hell to do, I did nothing. Because as the day traders will tell you, cash is a position too. The thing I am keenly aware of is if I reach -8 in a shoe, I have to stop playing the shoe. It is so difficult to adhere to this particular concept. I am thinking if I can back to break even, I will be elated. Don't know about most of you, but I really never claw all the way back to that point. I just need to accept this and go on. We are all schooled with the mechanics of playing the various modes, but how well we are disciplined is going to make or break us

Ciao

Joey

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use