Baccarat world moves from deviations and equilibrium points and we know that some events tend to be deviated infinitely whereas others won't, those last touching many many times the zero (equilibrium) cutoff.
Nonetheless we know that such features may easily disappoint this assumption, let's think about B/P gap favoring the right side, B singles overcoming B streaks and many other related issues.

Anyway we know that thanks to the bac features, the ranges of intervention of certain events will be more restrained than others by 100% accuracy.

Which movements should help us most in order to control the outcomes?

Of course those events touching more likely the zero point several times so that the progression presented can "cover" the slight expected deviations going toward a side or another.

We see that in such effort we don't want to classify a given event as good or bad, we want just to pick up the situations where some deviations are more likely to go back to an ideal zero point.

Let's call it a kind of "equilibrium" goal, but it really isn't as every event slightly going back and forward to a point different to zero will allow us to get a profit by a very slow MM.

So we know that even aiming to points different to zero we could find possible valid spots to start our betting.

In reality, most part of authoritative gambling experts of the past had stated that searching for deviations is the best tool to try to get the best of it.
A perfect opposite thought of what just discussed.

Since I'm not in the position of confuting such claimings, I'll take for grant this thought.
Better going toward deviations than hoping for a return to equilibrium.
Still the problem is posed about how much to look for deviations. In a word, when to stop the betting or, better, when to start the betting?

Good questions.

Yet we get answers.

Without a doubt, the probability to get deviations toward a given side and per any event considered will be increased after many equilibrium points will be crossed, and of course we know that we don't necessarily need to reach zero eq. points to win.

On the other hand, a lot of equilibrium points (widely considered) crossed must be considered as a deviation itself.

Then our strategic plan should be focused about deviations. Period.

Easy to say it, but what about the practice?

Actually there are no positive or negative deviations. There are deviations. Each deviation will get its peaks in a way or another. It's just a matter of time. 
Some deviations are more likely than others, nevertheless even an unexpected deviation (multiple clusters of B singles vs B streaks, for example) will reach high points. We can't do anything to prevent such occurence if we have chosen to bet toward B streaks. 
But we know that this unlikely occurence cannot last for long.

Imo, the probability to get simultaneous high deviations on multiple events (deviations also intended as many equilibrium spots reached) is so small to allow us to set up a profitable plan.

as.

   

A random world itlr is composed by the same number of deviations and (pseudo)equilibriums.
Of course we know that globally taken, the deviations will get a kind of advantage over the equilibriums, yet we cannot know when and at which degree such deviations will take place.

Yes, the more we play the more will be unlikely to reach an equlibrium point, but only if we consider the equilibrium point as a X=Y spot, meaning two opposite events reaching a zero gap point.

In setting up our strategy we cannot forget that we shoudln't care care less about the value of deviations, just focus about the number of Deviations/Equilibrium spots as itlr and even on shortest terms such values are less influenced by variance.   

as.

Moreover, at baccarat we know that certain deviations/equlibrium ratios are infinitely shifting toward one side so we can't rely upon the sole probability to get some ratios breaking even itlr.
We know they will be shifted toward one side with 1 trillion accuracy.

We shouldn't want to guess the value or the probability of getting deviations as we cannot have any hint about this; we want to take advantage of the fact that D/E ratios of many events will be either equal or shifted toward the left side.

Therefore limiting the variance and at the same time trying to get more precision about the nature of the future hands dealt.

as. 

   

Any baccarat system is based upon the probability to get A or B and if you have read my posts you know there are several ways to classify a given event as A or B.

Generally speaking, an A/B word is composed by deviations and equilibriums. The last situation could be classified into two different categories: real equilibriums and "false" equilibriums.
False equilibriums must be intended as those situations where the gap between two opposite events tend to "stall", meaning they are not gaining a sensible deviation toward one side or another despite the A/B gap is different to zero (ok, mathematically it's 1).

The deviation side is easier to evaluate: anytime A or B chance will deviate, we just have to take into account HOW MUCH or, preferably, HOW it deviates.

UNLESS THE GAME IS MATHEMATICALLY OR BY OTHER REASONS SHIFTED TOWARD ONE SIDE, the flow and the gap of these three different features itlr will tend to be equal to zero.

Notice that itlr we are certain that EC will be more or less deviated toward one side as the real equilibrium will be a kind of utopistic goal.
Nonetheless, regularly betting toward deviations without a sensible reason must be considered as a sort of "pushing the luck" strategy as such deviations (in a direction or another) are just the by product of the natural flow of the outcomes, meaning that the opposite false or real equilibrium situations are due. 

Actually a world mainly composed by real equilibriums and/or limited deviations will be a perfect world to set up a simple progression.
On the other part, regularly betting toward deviations doesn't get the job as we cannot know at which degree and at which frequency (unless from a theorical point of view) such deviations will take place.

It's true that regularly betting toward real or false equilibriums without a reason doesn't make the job either as we could easily get multiple deviations intended as real deviations (going farther from a zero gap) or false deviations (partial RTM effect from a perfect zero gap) even more difficult to properly assess.

Therefore a so called "perfect" strategy cannot solely rely upon deviations or equilibriums without knowing how many times and how much a given opposite statistical situation had occurred.

Instead, we should place our confidence to get more reliable results about the EMPIRICAL probability to get favourable outcomes after having known that some expected results are due. As they must due by mathematics and common probability.

Talking about practice, let's say we want to set up a slow multilayered strategy based on the increased probability to get more P 4s than P 4+s (more Player 4 streaks than Player superior streaks).

Good, we know that itlr we'll get by 1 trillion certainty more P 4s than P 4+s, so we cannot be wrong.
Not a vulgar finding as roulette can't give us such certainty.
True, the vig itlr will cancel the validity of such finding, still we know that in this scenario A>B.

Technically and mathematically we know we will be more right than wrong whenever after a P 4 streak a Banker hand will show up by an expected or better probability to show an asymmetrical hand, a hand where B side is mathematically favorite.
Whenever after a P 4 streak the next hand will be symmetrical (50/50) placed, we know our confidence about getting a B hand will go to the toilet.

Since we know that the mathematical probability to get an asym hand after a P 4 streak is around 1/11, we know we'll be wrong 10 times over 11. No matter how we think to be genius to guess what will be the next hand, especially if we won the hand on a symmetrical spot (it's just luck!).

Nevertheless itlr we'll get the same amount of deviations, real equilibriums and false equilibriums occurring between P 4s and P 4+s. Still we have the luxury to know that real equilibriums are just utopistic or short term findings as there are no REAL equilibriums on those opposite events itlr.

That doesn't mean our strategy should be focused to stubbornly hoping for more expected outcomes, just to properly assess the "deviations-real equilibriums-false equilibriums" situations happened in the past as at baccarat they will have a slight different degree of showing up.

The more one or more features had deviated from the norm in regard of their expected probability, the better will be our results. Especially taking into account several multiple AB situations, knowing that at baccarat when certain A events will be heavily present some different and related counter B situations will be less proportionally present.

as. 
       









   

As,

Sorry, and I have played this game a long time.  You admit there is no perfect equilibrium, etc., I understand what you are saying with the A/B and the swings and the 'catch-ups'.  Works sometimes and will work at certain points and will failure other attempts for the shoe changing or 'not self-correcting', etc., etc.

But, the bottom line when all things appear the shoe will correct and provide the equilibrium, etc., what happens when the shoe continues and adds another 10 -15 in the unequal direction and then when you realize that, it suddenly goes back to correcting itself and as soon as you get on it that way, it changes once again and adds fur unequal results, etc.

To me, it's like a drunk driver, there is no way to tell which way he will truly go, even he doesn't know.

Al, your comments are appropriate.

Anyway I was hoping to hear from a roulette player that at gambling games equilibrium (being false or real) simply doesn't exist.

First hand is a deviation by definition, BB BP PB or PP aren't equilibriums and so on...

Gambling games are characterized just by deviations. There's no one single pattern producing an equilibrium. No one, even though most players consider as a deviation any "simple" pattern coming out.

The problem is trying to get a kind of advantage from this assumption.

And imo this task can be done only by filtering and filtering and filtering the shoe outcomes as any random world is limited, especially taking into account multiple situations where we can easily toss the unfavourable events privileging the best ones.

as.   

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on May 24, 2016, 10:27:40 PM
Al, your comments are appropriate.

. There's no one single pattern producing an equilibrium. No one, even though most players consider as a deviation any "simple" pattern coming out.

.

as.   

That's exactly correct.  The same one in a shoe, might not repeat it self for hundreds or thousands of shoes.  Then again, it might repeat itself for many spots the very next shoe.  Play it one way and the next time the same trend or bias comes around, you have to play it completely the opposite for part of it and then the same and then entirely different to continue successfully with it.  Extremely hard to do, almost impossible.  That is why, the fewer and the least wagers, pump up the value, is so important crucial. 

Quote from: alrelax on May 24, 2016, 10:35:54 PM
That's exactly correct.  The same one in a shoe, might not repeat it self for hundreds or thousands of shoes.  Then again, it might repeat itself for many spots the very next shoe.  Play it one way and the next time the same trend or bias comes around, you have to play it completely the opposite for part of it and then the same and then entirely different to continue successfully with it.  Extremely hard to do, almost impossible.  That is why, the fewer and the least wagers, pump up the value, is so important crucial.

Now we really talk the same language.

But remove the phrase "almost impossible", replacing it with "the odds we can't succeed in that are remote". :-)

My word that very soon baccarat pits won't be so glad to accept us as players. Especially high stakes players like you.

as.

   

There are very limited shoes we can capitalize on, at least with a decent ROI in the HL's.  I am NOT talking about the main floor, buy in with $200 to $400 or so and make $100 or $150 and walk.  I am talking about buying in with $10k to $50k and making say, $10 to $20k.  It is tough!  I am not referring to kamikaze attempts either of $5k or $10k one or two wagers.  I am talking about $300 to $1,000 average wagers. 

Now that I have all the glitz and glam out of my system about the casinos, yes, I am more dangerous.  That is why that shoe that haunts me I wrote about, I should have had $500k to $1M on that shoe easily.  If I pumped it up to $20-25k a hand, I would have won 40 or so hands and lost maybe 10. 

It can be done, extremely hard because the majority of us get burned out, broke, lose interest, or give up when we finally get the wherewithal, the experience and the knowledge coupled with the guts to do it. 

It's complicated.

Of course it's complicated.

After all we're talking about the possibility to regularly beat an EV- game.

Maybe we'll be able to set up a BS baccarat team, we never know...

as. 

Quote from: alrelax on May 24, 2016, 10:57:09 PM
There are very limited shoes we can capitalize on, at least with a decent ROI in the HL's.  I am NOT talking about the main floor, buy in with $200 to $400 or so and make $100 or $150 and walk.  I am talking about buying in with $10k to $50k and making say, $10 to $20k.  It is tough!  I am not referring to kamikaze attempts either of $5k or $10k one or two wagers.  I am talking about $300 to $1,000 average wagers. 

So you're talking about a spread of a little  more than 3:1.  Let's say 300-1200 for a spread of 4:1.  What's the average bet size with that kind of spread?  450? 600? maybe?  To make 10k then need to win 20 more bets than lose at $500 in a good session if flat bet.  But you're not talking flat betting I don't think.  So do you think a 4:1 spread can accomplish this?  I suppose it can happen in a good high% win rate.

So today real numbers made 22 units in 99 bets place with average bet size of about 2.2 units (I added them up just now).  I came out with a 58.5% win rate.  No, not $500  a hand    So what is the expected win rate?  What I'm getting at is that win rate is not achievable for any significant number of hands so  . . . if you can't get a real high % win rate then a 4:1 spread is not big enough to achieve the wins.

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on May 24, 2016, 11:12:14 PM
Of course it's complicated.

After all we're talking about the possibility to regularly beat an EV- game.

I guess this is a long winded way of asking don't you have to figure a win rate to establish the bet spread?

Quote from: alrelax on May 24, 2016, 10:57:09 PM


Now that I have all the glitz and glam out of my system about the casinos, yes, I am more dangerous.  That is why that shoe that haunts me I wrote about, I should have had $500k to $1M on that shoe easily.  If I pumped it up to $20-25k a hand, I would have won 40 or so hands and lost maybe 10. 

Shoulda woulda coulda

Quote from: Babu on May 25, 2016, 04:30:30 AM
Shoulda woulda coulda

Absolutely 110%! 

Quote from: alrelax on May 25, 2016, 12:41:33 PM
Absolutely 110%!

I'll add one, if my aunt had nutz she'd be my uncle.

My point was, the limited chances are there.  Hit them when the opportunity is there and try not to get caught up in all the superstition and false reasoning(s). Try not to think back on any other previous shoes or hands and play what the current shoe is producing. 

I still say, the mentality of the game has changed to the 'cut', thereby always missing the trends/bias, chops, clusters, virtually everything except the true 'cut' to whatever is opposite.