|
"Here, I would like to introduce some alternative betting methods and knowledge.
Gamblers understand that gambling is a unique form of investment, acknowledging the influence of ""luck"" or so-called ""hand luck,"" seemingly predetermined by some higher power.
However, when a person is in the casino, they are often influenced by the atmosphere, unsure of what they are doing, leading to ambiguous wins and losses. In the initial chapters, I repeatedly reminded everyone about the concept of ""luck."" So, can one rely on ""luck"" for gambling? While it may seem like wishful thinking, in practice, it is not entirely implausible. However, using this alternative method may not be considered ethical. Here, I will introduce two alternative betting methods.
### Two-Person Betting Method
The first method is called the ""Two-Person Betting Method."" This method requires collaboration between two people. If you are at the casino with a friend, you can utilize this method. The basic idea is that one person bets on ""Banker,"" and the other bets on ""Player."" Some might say this is absurd because, theoretically, each round results in a tie, but the ""Banker"" winner has to pay a commission, resulting in a loss for the ""Player"" bet.
However, if the two individuals use different bet amounts, the outcome will differ. Let's take an example with each person betting 100 units. The ""Banker"" bettor places a 100-unit bet, and the ""Player"" bettor places a 300-unit bet. If ""Player"" wins, both individuals win a total of 200 units. If ""Player"" loses, both individuals lose a total of 205 units.
The key here is exploiting the players' individual ""luck."" Since each person has different luck, betting against the unfavorable bet can increase the chances of winning. By adjusting the bet amounts and continuously monitoring the results, individuals can capitalize on their luck and maximize profits.
This method allows both participants to actively engage in betting according to their preferences, enhancing the entertainment aspect and avoiding scenarios where the winner hesitates to leave, and the loser, having lost everything, disrupts the winner's decisions, ultimately leading to losses for both." |
|