Every Picture Tells a Story

Junket King's Screen Shot - with his explanation:

What you are looking at is the summary sheet fromWin Craps.

The important stuff, as to money, is all onthe left.

First, I always start with a zero balance. That way I am sure to notice the draw downs in stark reality. At the top we see the total rolls and setting it for 55 rolls an hour it tells me how long at a real craps table this should simulate. At a busy table that number could be high but the Casino Manager's Handbook has it over 100 RPH.

Next, on the left, we see Bankroll. It shows how high I got, what my worst draw down was and it computes an average. TheAverage is useless to me.

Next comes the important part."Total number of..." Bets decided = bets which I had working and which weredecided while they worked. In the attached graphic it shows I had a deficit of -193. That's how many bets I lost vs. won. Not impressive, is it? But I was betting box numbers and only one can win at a time. When the 7 shows, all working bets get wiped out. That would be 4-5-6 locations with whatever dollar amount was on each.

Next we have "total amount of..." This is where we see how well a progression can work. Everything is in dollars. You can see that I wagered a total of $15,808. I won $10,024 and lost $8,507. Total net gain is $1517. Now we can divide the hours into the total win and calculatethat I made $63.74 per hour in this instance. What it doesn't show is that when I started I was getting hammered and my $ per hour was hovering at $28-$35 and I was ready to quit. Probably would have it if were a live table. Bottom line is while my bet wins were far exceeded by losses that by applying a progression allowed me to finish in profit.

The draw down (Bankroll: Low) in red - shows the risk I took. That's how much I would have had to dip into my buy-in. Since I use a hefty BR when playing live (or at least hefty to some low rollers) the risk (volatility in this case) is fully acceptable or within normal parameters. It takes money to make money.

Gambling is a business to some of us and we have to structure it like same. The graphic also is centered around a very conservative method. Call it a grind. Were I to use triple my normal BR, my earnings in dollars and the $ per table hour would soar. A larger BR would also allow me to play a bit looser. That would be a plus and a faster earner.

Junket King


Thanks Junket King for the Picture AND the Story.


my friend Scotty at the Horsehose
borrowed without permission
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=132499822&MyToken=a78765aa-2fdb-4e62-9075-bd5afbb79b12



at the bac table in AC
from baccarat_guy
http://smartbaccarat.blogspot.com/


Royal Flush! in AC- Nice!
http://smartbaccarat.blogspot.com/





If any of you have any pictures that tell a story, please let me know. D_Generate

"Statistical Propensity" and "Diminishing Probability"

Are we simply guessing that a specific random event will occur? If so, are we nothing more than victims (or benefactors) of the fickle finger of lady luck?

I believe that some betting opportunities are "better" than others. In Roulette, betting that a series of 7 black decisions in a row will end within the next 5 decisions seems to be a "good" bet. It seems to me that it is a "better" wager than to bet that a series of 2 black decisions in a row will end within the next 5 decisions. Betting that 7 won't continue to 12 "seems like" a "better" wagering opportunity than betting that 2 won;t go to 7 BUT the mathematicians will tell us otherwise, the odds are exactly the same.

So why does it feel better? I think it feels better because we find ourselves encountering runs of 7 much more often than runs of 12. (But we also find ourselves encountering runs of 2 much much more often than runs of 7). Perhaps it is because of what Barstow calls the Law of Diminishing Probability and/or what R. D. Ellison calls the Law of Statistical Propensity. Although spins of the wheel and dice decisions are random events not related to previous decisions, it appears that over time the decisions tend to conform to or at least gravitate toward their mathematically expectations.

Ellison says:

"Taking all 38 numbers into consideration, the least number of times any number showed up was 16, and the most number of times was 50. This is a wider range, which accounts for the greater possibility of unconventional trends in a larger sampling, but not one of the 38 numbers tried to escape from the corral. Meaning, each one was compelled to show up a minimum number of times, but not too many times."

From: "American Roulette Is Now Mathematically Beatable" - by R.D. Ellison
See: http://www.thegamblersedge.com/propensity.htm

I believe that perhaps we can discover ideal betting opportunities. These would be bets that we would win more often than we'd lose AND (here is the tricky part) when we lose it is less than our winnings for that session or period of time. For example: suppose we should win this bet 7 out of ten times and with each win we'd gain one unit and with each loss we'd lose 2 units. For every 10 decisions, we should average a net of 3 units.

Eillison is promoting his 3Q/A Roulette system (which I have not tried) and arguing Statistical Propensity in support of it. I'm not sure (because I have not done the math) but if Ellsion is saying that the mathematical expectation is such that his wagering plan wins more often than it loses and wins more money than it loses, then it passes my test (and I imagine everyone else's) for a "good" bet.

Labouchere & Baccarat

Has anyone had any good experience with the Labouchere in Baccarat? Or the reverse Labouchere? It seems like such a solid choice of system because in most shoes neither side will perform at less than 40%. If your side performs at 40% or better, you should be able to complete several labouchere series in 60 or so decisions. I've read about "splitting lines" and "busting out" lines, does anyone have good advice regarding these mitigation tactics?

Books

Here are a few books on Gambling that I highly recommend:

"Beat the Casino" by Frank Barstow - 1979 Carlyle and Associates - Although difficult to find, this is the Bible for system players and system designers. Barstow treats this subject with a level of analysis far greater than any others I have come across. More than a simple list of systems, Barstow gets into the why and how of systems.

"The Most Powerful Blackjack Manual" by Jay Moore - 2004 Lyle Stuart, Kennsington - This is a terrific book for anyone who wants to understand how to play (and beat) the game without counting cards. Nobody has set the record straight on what to expect from the game like Moore. His experience as a Math instructor and as a player comes through in a well-written text. Although I am not completely sold on his "delayed and up" method, his data and presentation are excellent.

"Bringing Down the House" by Ben Mezrich - 2002 Free Press - The true story behind the popular motion picture "21". This tale of card counting should be an inspiration to all of us who seek to remove some small portion of the casinos' fortune. A fun read.

Please feel free to share any recommendations of books or websites that you have found to be helpful or enjoyable. I would also welcome any "not recommended" books or websites.

Welcome!!

Welcome to the Systems Forum Blog! I created this blog to encourage the intelligent discussion of gambling systems for use at table games in real casinos.

I am not interested in on-line gambling, nor am I interested in Poker, however all comments are welcome.

Suggested Topics include: recommended books, mathematical probabilities, scams to avoid, preferred casinos, things that do not work, Vegas deals, etc..

My most recent efforts have been directed at recognizing and exploiting trends in Baccarat shoes.

If you have any interest in Gambling Systems, please leave a comment or suggestion for discussion.

Thanks!