
Originally Posted by jversace
Yup. I checked and you're right, US is not included. Thanks anyway.
When you look at a site, the first thing you should look at is which software they use.
The vast majority of softwares do not allow ANY players from the USA.
e.g. This one is Playtech  all their casinos are unavailable in the US.
The main softwares who do still take Americans are RTG (RealTime Gaming), Top Game and Rival. But do your homework on each casino as some of them are rogues.
There is also BetOnSoft (relatively new) which all seem to be OK so far.
Good luck!
KK

Retired
Originally Posted by jversace
Originally Posted by Fender
Yes I do, I played there in late April, they had a 200/200 Euro bonus, and you could play French Roulette, I made over 200 profit and the cash out went smoothly.
Could be wrong on this, but are you sure you aren't talking about Gold Club Casino (as opposed to Club Gold Casino)? I played there about the same time after you mentioned them on chat.

Errr... are there any legit strategies for this game?!? Chemmy's a mugs game imo!

let me guess....nobody ever wins in the long run
Originally Posted by dfarrall
There is no "winning system" you win, you lose. Obviously the fact that you do it on +EV offers is what keeps making you do it.
You should be betting what you think you should be betting, nothing you do is gonna increase your chance to win.
Here's an idea.....wait for Player or Banker streak of 13 and begin play against streak. In Macau at setup were there are 100 games going simultaneously may occur two times per hour. Cold Coast one play ever ninety minutes....rough guess.
The idea of course is that all streaks end and that the longest Player or Banker streak is 23. Martingale it until a unit is won. If you lose 11 in a row....meaning 13 + 11 or 24 straight then you go broke but have one hell of a story.
Ideas?

Premium Member
I wouldn't fancy losing that type of money no matter how good the story.
I don't play the game, but isn't the chance of the dealer winning 11 after a winning streak of 13 the same as the dealer winning 11 at any time?

Originally Posted by MB101
I wouldn't fancy losing that type of money no matter how good the story.
I don't play the game, but isn't the chance of the dealer winning 11 after a winning streak of 13 the same as the dealer winning 11 at any time?
I'm simply saying that all streaks end. The longest known player/banker streak is 23. (p) probability is 50%, (dc) degree of certainty changes as the (nt) number of trials increases.
Each day we live, we are getting one day closer to our deaths. The math guys will tell you that runs can go on for infinity. Does that make any sense to you? Are you familiar with any streak anywhere that has been going on for years, or even 17 in a row?
Does the longest known streak of 23 have any value when trying to construct a betting strategy? Do billions of hands mean anything.
The "gamblers fallacy" is a fallacy. The Ivory Tower math goofs are not gamblers. Not interested in AP blackjack players. It's a zero sum game for most AP's.

Premium Member
Originally Posted by treetopbuddy
I'm simply saying that all streaks end. The longest known player/banker streak is 23. (p) probability is 50%, (dc) degree of certainty changes as the (nt) number of trials increases.
Each day we live, we are getting one day closer to our deaths. The math guys will tell you that runs can go on for infinity. Does that make any sense to you? Are you familiar with any streak anywhere that has been going on for years, or even 17 in a row?
Does the longest known streak of 23 have any value when trying to construct a betting strategy? Do billions of hands mean anything.
The "gamblers fallacy" is a fallacy. The Ivory Tower math goofs are not gamblers. Not interested in AP blackjack players. It's a zero sum game for most AP's.
OK fine.. if you believe that you should go to a casino and play roulette.... wait for the ball to land on black and then bet red on the next hand as the chances of him hitting black twice are only 1/4... or wait... if he's already hit black once is it actually 1/2?
Mutually exclusive events.
Obviously my example above is an extreme version of your method above, but just because something has never happened it doesn't mean it never can. Try and work out the odds of you existing... the number is frighteningly small, yet here you are; a "winning streak" of a large but indefinible unknown number.

Originally Posted by MB101
OK fine.. if you believe that you should go to a casino and play roulette.... wait for the ball to land on black and then bet red on the next hand as the chances of him hitting black twice are only 1/4... or wait... if he's already hit black once is it actually 1/2?
Mutually exclusive events.
Obviously my example above is an extreme version of your method above, but just because something has never happened it doesn't mean it never can. Try and work out the odds of you existing... the number is frighteningly small, yet here you are; a "winning streak" of a large but indefinible unknown number.
I'm not sure you read or understand the point I'm trying to make. I have no idea what point you are trying to make...That's O.K., this is a public forum where people throw out random ideas, like mine.
I simply believe that past events in Roulette as an example, do play a part in the permanence of the wheel. The wheel is a finely crafted RNG that is always trying to balance.
When the known longest run in Bac is 23 maybe a method of play can be derived from that knowledge?

Originally Posted by treetopbuddy
I'm not sure you read or understand the point I'm trying to make. I have no idea what point you are trying to make...That's O.K., this is a public forum where people throw out random ideas, like mine.
I simply believe that past events in Roulette as an example, do play a part in the permanence of the wheel. The wheel is a finely crafted RNG that is always trying to balance.
When the known longest run in Bac is 23 maybe a method of play can be derived from that knowledge?
If the wheel is random (or if any event is random) then each event is independent of every other event. That's all the Gambler's Fallacy is about, it's just a statement of fact, not some kind of 'myth'.
I like this debate, it does raise interesting points but if you're trying to argue the case for Martingale as a valid or 'sane' gambling strategy in a game that is truly random then I think you're wrong. Martingale IS a guaranteed way to make an infinite profit, but only if you have infinite resources available to you  if you don't have infinite resources (bankroll, time and table limits) then Martingale will fail. The only way to capitalize on it is to quit whilst you're ahead, which still requires you to have a big enough bankroll to ride out the losses.
All of this is muddied by the mention of The Gambler's Fallacy, The Gambler's Fallacy is the belief that a series of events such as a sequence of spins on a roulette table or a sequence of rolls of a dice somehow has a 'memory', so if you spin 5 blacks in a row, the 6th spin is more likely to result in a red. This mistaken belief is commonly attributed to the fact that as humans we like to think we have control in situations in which we actually have no control over (like the outcome of events we have gambled on).
So, you suggest that a possible profitable strategy would be to wait for a very long streak at a bacarrat table, and then start betting 'against' that streak using a Martingale staking strategy, the theory being that the streak is more likely to end and so you should win 'big' sooner rather than later.
You said:
Originally Posted by treetopbuddy
Here's an idea.....wait for Player or Banker streak of 13 and begin play against streak. In Macau at setup were there are 100 games going simultaneously may occur two times per hour. Cold Coast one play ever ninety minutes....rough guess.
The idea of course is that all streaks end and that the longest Player or Banker streak is 23. Martingale it until a unit is won. If you lose 11 in a row....meaning 13 + 11 or 24 straight then you go broke but have one hell of a story.
Ideas?
Some where below that you then said along the lines of some maths geek will come along and point out that no not all streaks must end, a streak can be infinite. Well yes that's true. But it's also true that the longer you go along a 'streak' the less likely the streak will continue in future (this is all to do with variance and standard distribution). But still, it's not entirely impossible for there to be an infinitely long streak. I think this is what MB101 was arguing as well.
(Incidentally I liked your comment about how we're all going to die sooner rather than later at some point or whatever it was you said, that is quite a relevant (albeit tenuously so!) and interesting issue as well about mortality, as you get older, riskier things become more profitable because there's more likelihood you're going to die 'tomorrow' anyway, so you might as well do riskier things since the risk becomes more marginal the older you are.)
Similarly you say that the longest streak in baccarat ever recorded is 23. Ok that's fine, I don't know if that's true but I believe you... but what if the one time you're playing you happen to get the world record of all streaks and it's 24? And you've only got enough bankroll for 23?! You'd be a bit peed off I imagine.
The thing is though, the Gambler's fallacy is about random events. If you're talking about a bricks and mortar casino where a shoe is used to deal cards with a finite number of cards in it (I'm not even sure this exists much anymore since they use random shoe shufflers don't they?), then perhaps it might be more possible to put your plan into action.
In that kind of scenario the Gambler's fallacy doesn't apply since you're NOT talking about a set of random events  each new card taken from the shoe IS dependent on the previous cards that were drawn (since the new cards being drawn cannot be the same as any other cards that have previously been drawn, the key factor used in card counting). So in that scenario then yes it could be possible that you would gain an edge by waiting for a very long streak and then betting against the streak.
However if you're suggesting that spins of a roulette wheel are not independent then I think that is a misguided view, it's a lot harder to make a case for a series of spins of a roulette wheel being linked or of the roulette wheel having a 'memory', and that really is just pie in the sky all round (maybe you could pay the roulette fairies that decide where the ball is going to land off! ).
The Gambling Times  Dictionary of Gambling and Betting Terminology
Last edited by munk; 11/05/2013 at 10:15.

Post Thanks / Like

Originally Posted by munk
If the wheel is random (or if any event is random) then each event is independent of every other event. That's all the Gambler's Fallacy is about, it's just a statement of fact, not some kind of 'myth'.
I like this debate, it does raise interesting points but if you're trying to argue the case for Martingale as a valid or 'sane' gambling strategy in a game that is truly random then I think you're wrong. Martingale IS a guaranteed way to make an infinite profit, but only if you have infinite resources available to you  if you don't have infinite resources (bankroll, time and table limits) then Martingale will fail. The only way to capitalize on it is to quit whilst you're ahead, which still requires you to have a big enough bankroll to ride out the losses.
All of this is muddied by the mention of The Gambler's Fallacy, The Gambler's Fallacy is the belief that a series of events such as a sequence of spins on a roulette table or a sequence of rolls of a dice somehow has a 'memory', so if you spin 5 blacks in a row, the 6th spin is more likely to result in a red. This mistaken belief is commonly attributed to the fact that as humans we like to think we have control in situations in which we actually have no control over (like the outcome of events we have gambled on).
So, you suggest that a possible profitable strategy would be to wait for a very long streak at a bacarrat table, and then start betting 'against' that streak using a Martingale staking strategy, the theory being that the streak is more likely to end and so you should win 'big' sooner rather than later.
You said:
Some where below that you then said along the lines of some maths geek will come along and point out that no not all streaks must end, a streak can be infinite. Well yes that's true. But it's also true that the longer you go along a 'streak' the less likely the streak will continue in future (this is all to do with variance and standard distribution). But still, it's not entirely impossible for there to be an infinitely long streak. I think this is what MB101 was arguing as well.
(Incidentally I liked your comment about how we're all going to die sooner rather than later at some point or whatever it was you said, that is quite a relevant (albeit tenuously so!) and interesting issue as well about mortality, as you get older, riskier things become more profitable because there's more likelihood you're going to die 'tomorrow' anyway, so you might as well do riskier things since the risk becomes more marginal the older you are.)
Similarly you say that the longest streak in baccarat ever recorded is 23. Ok that's fine, I don't know if that's true but I believe you... but what if the one time you're playing you happen to get the world record of all streaks and it's 24? And you've only got enough bankroll for 23?! You'd be a bit peed off I imagine.
The thing is though, the Gambler's fallacy is about random events. If you're talking about a bricks and mortar casino where a shoe is used to deal cards with a finite number of cards in it (I'm not even sure this exists much anymore since they use random shoe shufflers don't they?), then perhaps it might be more possible to put your plan into action.
In that kind of scenario the Gambler's fallacy doesn't apply since you're NOT talking about a set of random events  each new card taken from the shoe IS dependent on the previous cards that were drawn (since the new cards being drawn cannot be the same as any other cards that have previously been drawn, the key factor used in card counting). So in that scenario then yes it could be possible that you would gain an edge by waiting for a very long streak and then betting against the streak.
However if you're suggesting that spins of a roulette wheel are not independent then I think that is a misguided view, it's a lot harder to make a case for a series of spins of a roulette wheel being linked or of the roulette wheel having a 'memory', and that really is just pie in the sky all round (maybe you could pay the roulette fairies that decide where the ball is going to land off! ).
The Gambling Times  Dictionary of Gambling and Betting Terminology
Thanks for taking the time to break down my post. You believe it's possible that runs can go on forever and it's that idea I find so fascinating. Yet, in billions on hands the longest known streak in Bac is 23. 23 is a long way from forever. I view gambling not a theoretical exercise, but a real world challenge. The takeout is a given. Beating a game with 1.5% takeout is not like climbing Mt. Everest.
"Are all spins and all appearances independent? No, neither the spins nor appearances can be independent, because each is a part of the whole. In reality, each spin and each appearance has it's obligatory function in the totality of a permanency. Chance doesn't exist there, because all effects have visible or hidden causes."
Again, (p) probability is 50%, as the (nt) number of trials increases the (dc) degree of certainty increases. My original post was a real world example with a practical twist on an idea to gain an advantage on the house. I was hoping for input on the idea, not a math dissertation.
Thanks anyway.
Tags for this Thread
Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads
 You may not post replies
 You may not post attachments
 You may not edit your posts

Forum Rules
