A whole lot of nonsense.

The emotional state of the players will have no effect on the casino at all in a fair coin flip game. The casino will average no profit under any circumstance.

In a house edge game emotions can cause humans to bet more often and bigger, which causes them to lose more, but the house still won't make more money per dollar wagered.

Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself I am large, I contain multitudes (Walt Whitman)

Do you like this quote?

We were talking about bac players losses itlr and players losses do not collect in the air but in casinos' pockets.
Mathematically you are partially right, statistically you are completely wrong.

Maybe you do not know that several years ago a couple of european casinos offered no zero roulettes for long time.
At the end of the year those casinos earned a lot of money anyway, despite their EV being a fkng zero.

Therefore casinos will make money itlr even if their EV is zero.

The only way casinos or players are sure as hell to lose/win the expected (that is zero in a game having EV=0) itlr is when each single player adopts a kind of "random walk" strategy, that is betting always the same amount.

A situation that can never happen at baccarat since every player wants to win no matter what or to break even after a given losing session considering outcomes per each session played.

I guess I know more baccarat players than anybody else here and I can assure you that at the end of the year the vast majority of them are not losing 1% or so of the total money wagered.

Take this stupid example.

After 1024 BP resoilved hands played, on average we will encounter a ten winning streak and a ten losing streak.
To lose or win the expected we must get the same amount of money won or lost.
Fortunately for casinos almost every bac player will lose more on the 10 losing streak than what he was able to win on the same specular streak by percentages very far from 1%.

Anything different from that is just short term variance that bac players may manage (badly) when on the positive side and terribly bad on the negative end of the spectrum.

Of course this line of thought won't give the player any edge, just tools to possibly adhere at most to the expected (losing) values.

Finally, we are just laughing loud at the "a whole of lot nonsense" replier.
Poor guy. He simply doesn't know.

This is an amazing sentence.

You are just plain wrong on this. The fact that players can go broke means there could be more losers than winners. But the casino comes out the same whether all wagers come from a single player or from 1 million players. It doesn't matter who quits or when, or whether losers quit sooner. The casino will absolutely converge to the game EV. This is tautologically true on its face, with no further analysis even needed.

The game you refer to either did not have zero EV due to the payout structure, or the casino didn’t really win more than variance.

The payout structure was obviously the same as in a single zero wheel, anyway you are right.

Finite vs infinite is another one.

So after you argued so passionately that casinos can win ITLR at fair coin flip games (0 EV), now you accept that they can't?

Hi NOG!
For sure I like to see your comments always accurate and very welcome.

At gambling things very often will go beyond mathematics. On either side.
Yet nobody can argue about mathematics. Profits will. On either side.

Casinos will make more money than expected because the large majority of players like to adopt weird betting strategies or, better sayed, to put bad aims as winning no matter what or trying to win too much or trying to break even per every session played.
And, hey, players are betting finite amounts vs a virtual infinite bankroll into a game offering finite limits.

But whenever B1<B2<B3<B4 and P1>P2>P3>P4 are fighting into a finite and dependent world, we can't lose.
Join us into a real played session and you'll realize that this game is just wonderful.

Btw, a very simple question dedicated to math geniuses (not to NOG, of course) who keep stating just bighorn**** about baccarat and other gambling topics:

what's the probability to win on B side whenever an asymmetrical hand will take place?

Let's see the answers. And let's see the detailed math explanation.

We'll wait for years, I guess.

It's futile to explain things to you, but betting strategies have no effect on the house's EV in games like roulette (your example) where every play is independent.

Ok, those casinos got just lucky. Happy?
At least I hope you are implying that baccarat is a dependent game.

None of your posts I responded to were about Baccarat. I responded to your incorrect theories regarding fair coin flip games and no-zero roulette, and your lack of understanding of how EV works.

Wow, this thread is popular...

Just read this from my neck of the woods:

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...postcount=5276

Been to that place a number of times.

Wonder if people travel like that just for bacc?

I don't think he's suggesting that it isnt neutral EV, but rather that the casinos would still hold a profit.

That's exactly what he was saying, and he's wrong. The game is either 0 EV or it is not, and the results will absolutely converge to that expectation in both cases, regardless of how players bet. He is saying that in a fair coin flip game of independent bets, that betting strategies (bad ones) can change the house's EV . They can't. It's just simply wrong. A casino cannot offer such a game and make money on it without adding special rules to make the EV favorable. He said that because players tend to quit when they are losing, that this changes the EV. It doesn't. In a coin flip game the casino's results will converge to breaking even. Period. It doesn't matter if all wagers are from one player, or one million players, it doesn't matter when they quit, it doesn't matter what their bankroll is, none of that changes the outcome for the casino in a coin flip game.

I know there is a myth floating around that the player's risk of ruin allows the casino to still profit in something like no-zero roulette. But it's a myth, and in a game of independent bets the risk of ruin is irrelevant to the house edge. Every bet is the same whether from a new player or from the last dollar of a losing player.

Lol. What do you do to ensure your unit per show?


I worked at Palazzo when the first one was introduced. Stadium gaming, that is.

Mentoring very high stakes gamblers is the way to go. But you need to be extremely sure about your winning strategy as many HS players are not taking so serenely their losses.

It's very difficult for the reasons you've explained above about gamblers.
HS players like to gamble not to win. Therefore you need to give them the perception you are winning by utilizing a "smart" gambling and not because you seem to know everything about baccarat.
Of course nobody is going to hire a mentor not betting at least purple or yellow chips.

If you have a system that wins your personal bankroll will grow. Put in 80 hr weeks. Don't blow your money. Continue to invest in your winning system.

Finding people to pay you money to tell them how to win isn't a good deal for you if you have what you say.

It's a very good deal if you don't...

if you have a winning system telling other people you have a winning system is dumb

posting about it on a popular gambling forum is extremely dumb

you don't ever want other people to learn there even is a winning system

Actually at baccarat it doesn't exist a winning system, that's why many internet scammers try to sell systems that 100% can't work.
The possible strategical processes to get an edge at this game are very complicated to learn and, as onguard and alpha fish pointed out correctly, there's no point to divulge such things.

Nevertheless and even if we regularly win playing for ourselves, money wagered at baccarat is so huge that sometimes deals offered by certain HS players cannot be refused.
Who would refuse a deal dictating a 20% cut for us on the final winnings and zero expenses on losses?
After all what we have to do is just suggesting what, when and how much to bet. Not "why".
That's what we call, maybe improperly, "mentoring".

Maybe the best accomplishment we can get besides winning money is publishing a baccarat book on 2+2, a thing that we know won't never happen as baccarat is a simply unbeatable game.

No problems with it.

A final note.
The scientific proof that bac can be beaten is to take infinite 6 or 8 deck shoes outcomes then comparing them with the same amount of "no third card rule" results.

If you know which patterns to look for and if you know what's the real probability to win per every asym or sym hand occurring per every class of cards utilized so far (a thing that nobody knows here), volatility and sd values are much reduced on the former class and, more importantly, capable to reduce and invert the HE by using a proper MM.

All of your big impressive words are rendered pointless by starting out with "if you know which patterns to look for." HOW do you know? Are you suggesting we develop psychic abilities? You're a progression player and you just won't admit it.

LOL.
How could I be a progression player whether I'm mentoring people wishing to bet at least $10.000 on tables having a $20.000 max limit?

Pointless? Tell me how is the average winning probability when betting Banker on asymmetrical hands.
Tell me that value then restart to post.
Maybe you do not even know what an asymmetrical hand is.

Know this? Good.

Tell me on average how many Banker hands having an initial 5 point are coming per each 8 deck shoe.

You are talking about what you simply do not know.