Sonny said:
His conclusions are not unsubstantiated. They have been verified in every book that discusses card counting in baccarat. You need to do more research before you make such accusations. Just because you haven’t read them doesn’t mean the facts don’t exist.
If you have any facts, now would be the time to use them. You spoke cryptically about “patterning” and progression systems which is why I moved the thread to this forum. If you have any legitimate information please share it, otherwise this thread will be closed.
-Sonny-
Sonny,
As the record clearly shows, i did NOT write cryptically but instead started to lay out some ideas and explanations asfaras i could and saw fit at the time; i did NOT write, write of, or write for/against, "progression systems" (, at least i can't seem to find the word in the posts here upon my review); i did NOT begin this thread, NOR under the heading "patterning in baccarat", NOR under the "voodoo" section. I was careful to make NO definite specific or general claims in any of my posts; and i (thought i) was particulary careful to avoid the word 'progression' after a brief overview of this site revealed a stigma with that word... all thereby myself requiring NO direct evidence/proof(s) then or now. (Some egs from my posts: working quantum computers are predicted only twenty years away; 'could' implies conditions, limitations, further examination etc; and to 'improve' toward normal isn't necessarily to 'better' beyond; i openly admitted to the overwhelming emperical evidence against me wrt patterning (as PB... ); and to clarify "are more yields than waiting for the last 20 cards" i meant throughout a card count for the P/B bets when not "impossibly" waiting only for those (small spread-out ACTUAL-yield) tie-betting situations.)
If i did say something "incriminating" or misleading, then i am sorry. Though i must now conclude you, Sonny, merit NO real value in anything BEGUN here. Needless to say, i will not put myself in this position again here.
Sonny, to which "books about baccarat" did you refer, and specifically to which theorem/theory when you implied the "gambler's fallacy" as supposedly substantiated by you here? It's a bit stupid to suggest i haven't read some of those "books"; but a lot stupid, yourself, to not then rely on the relevant acedemic literature, or even some self-evident arguement (, upon which those "books" ought to have been based.) Most gambling "books" and some of the related on-line forums (such as BTC) are by inherent contradictions, scams; are riddled with inaccuracies and faulty thinking patterns; and have (other) ulterior motives.
I prefer to myself freely seek out, apply, then draw my own conclusion(s) from the relevant and encompassing literal source(s). Only there CAN true advantage(s) lay. Eg, i don't have to buy a "book" on craps to (safely) figure out, eg, dice-setting is "crap". Have you, Sonny, or anyone else you know of really studied it, even just to rule some things out? Like deformation of solids (wrt bounce), fluid mechanics (wrt drag effects), a site-specific constantly-varying gravitational field (wrt projectile physics), various types/degrees and combinations of inertias/momentums, Coriolis effect, unpredictable Brownian-type energy shifts, standard temperature/pressure allowances, different manufacturers/casinos (and quality-control standards) of all materials involved, persons leaning on/bumping/walking past the table as well as the (constant) resident "noises", the diffuse (variably-angled and highly-deformable) backing foam(?), and die interference with each other and other elements of the table; not to mention the INEXORABLE human factors? Even were a machine set up to throw the dice in a controlled environment, and could throws of BOTH dice be say well w/i less than one rotation variance (over that distance), then calibrated to show any correlation over a billion resultant trials at the same table... it would very likely require re-programming/calibrating even were it moved to a different location. One may even yet require extentions to the known fields of engineering. (But don't worry, i'm sure there's another "book" around the corner and on the way here.) ANYONE who even considers that as viable could (perhaps) be a "little less" substantiated in other areas as well.
Physical/theoretical science has shown NO ABSOLUTELY KNOWN THEORY OF ANYTHING IN WHOLE OR PART, and most likely never will. That is widely-accepted cosmological doctrine. If anyone knew anything for sure, the Grand Unified Field Theory (of everything) would have immediately and freely flowed from it. But instead with each new degree and type of discovery there follows only a radically DIFFERENT one (in NO WAY implied by the earlier). Eg, relativity followed smoothly from Newtonian mechanics no more so than did quantum mechanics from relativity. Only very-detailed theory/observation, calculation, and testing can show up those "transitions", yet which are to night-and-day different types of physics. Specifically here, who's to say when all the non-purely mental forms of 'independent' and 'random' BEHAVIOR have been revealed? As in the "unseen" details of another work by Einstein, (i forget exactly which off hand but it's likely relativity-related) where, eg, set theory math doesn't recognize the additional intersection when adding sets... perhaps there's also a different counting math for the cards which make up the PB... outcomes. (Remember, even relativity seemed far-fetched and out of the question 100 years ago... and even today to those learning its concepts.) There're no truly independent events... otherwise pieces of the universe would be missing, not even there for consideration in the first place. And often events are 'associated'... still indicating an underlying logic, whichever, though just not consequential. Eg, the biases in "card washing" and shuffling, etc, procedures WILL carry throughout the day creating its own common "patterning" bias... practically unusable, but certainly extant because nothing is fully independent of anything else. By definition the "fallacy" idea holds up... but we DON'T live exclusively in our minds. That definition then doesn't fully exist (with us. Were we really alive, as our minds just naturally assume, then why don't we really stay alive? Nor can anything be just physical, w/o mental shape, etc, at least wrt our realm where theory meets practice. Eg, making a "movie" of something doesn't and can't really justify or reify its "actual" events. And sometimes the elements portrayed were more fake than the acting.) It's probability theory, itself, which implies that two random events such as "heads/tails" will ALWAYS even out multiplicatively; AND ADDITIVELY on and off, as go. (Probability and Statistics Inference vol. 1/2, by J.G. Kalbfleisch, "random walk" sections.) If one must lead to other and back, then probability, itself, must be the root cause of the "fallacy"; not per se even the "PB..." 'bet selection' stuff, each step of which also tends to remove some of the cards resulting in the win, hence making the other side very-slightly more likely (than before) at the next game. Nowhere have i denied that "fallacy". Only trying to make use of it.
Sonny, how can you have so confused "betting structures (application) and strategies (theory)" specifically with "progressions"? There're so many possible bet/payoff matrixes with other considerations; and many types/applications of progressions, some trivially useful. Furthermore, do you realize there's really no such thing as "flat" betting? Bring ten units, lose one... now you're betting progresses up to 1/9th of what's left to maintain that betting unit. And therein lies the basis of any betting strategy/struture. Wrt bj, most betting progressions at most times would be harmful because of the exposure to longer-than-normal losing-streak distributions (, which losses tend to be recouped by the fewer premium holdings as arise less often.) Therefore, i would infer it's not really "voodo" because it actually does something albeit disadvantageous.
But semantics happen when, eg, choosing and applying loaded terms like "advantage" and (versus) "voodoo"; and hence forth no longer accepting 'beatable' means different things to different persons (, beyond looking everywhere for the smarty "advantage" served up "hot and ready to to go". That every game of life is literally beatable in some way in no way implies each is worth playing, or playing in that manner. Is it more fun, etc, to beat the casino, the game, the other players, and/or something other?) "Choose your enemies well because you shall become them..." is the operative cliche here. Casinos intentionally play 24/7, narrow-minded "cat and mouse" (shill) sub-games with counters to keep the main one going for everyone. An illusion w/i an illusion. From my own bj experiences, even after having successfully civilly sued a major casino stemming from a 'cheat-at-play' incident (not criminally prosecuted). Casinos already well employ many and various academic experts (, though in most cases other factors could shut down the counters.) They're the last ones with whom to thus forget the game theory premise "always assume your opponent(s) plays well".
In summary, Sonny, i hope you will have the opportunity to do some new work on your own to experience how challenging and rewarding that can be, successful or not; especially in contrast to bearing down on new contributors, whoever. (In my opinion, bj alone will always be a boring, misleading, mechanical grind of an existence void of any real acedemic, etc, pursuits. And asfaras big winners come, aren't there many more even by slots and lotteries... sigh.)
Finally, being unable to disprove/work what i did provide isn't justification for it as cryptic; nor for moving/closing/etc this thread.
To others just interested the original invitation still stands but be aware that the information there is mostly derived from and only applicable to the game of baccarat (, and of course w/o any claims of liability on my part.) That is one reason i never meant to complete the work here.
