This is my original bac approach I want to present here (it was related to my defunct "dispositions and distributions" post.
As I sayed in the baccarat section, I have robbed the word "march" from Sputnik.
With the proper adjustments and experience it can fail.   

Denominations and key attacks

Singles are 1, doubles are 2, triples or longer streaks are 3.

Since singles are forming the most part of all baccarat outcomes, our main bet will be toward singles (1).
Doubles (2) and triples (3) are acting just a "recovering" second step situation. Anyone could assign a specific betting role to those 2 and 3 situations.

We'll only bet (or consider a bet) whenever the last two out of three possible outcomes are 1-2, 2-1, 1-3 or 3-1 in any order and distribution, meaning that 2-3 and 3-2 situatiuons will either not start the betting or stop the betting.

Splitting the 1,2 and 3 outcomes into two separate columns.

Of course the two separate columns I'm referring to are the Banker and Player columns.
Thus we'll get two separate 1-2 and 1-3 different marches, each of one starting the actual or fictional betting whenever the last two outcomes present 1-2, 2-1 or 1-3 or 3-1 outcomes.

Mathematical expectancy

From a mere mathematical and statistical point of view, we know that the 1-2 and 2-1 betting plan itlr will get better results on Player side; conversely a 1-3 and 3-1 betting plan will get the best of it on Banker side.
Actually there's no a better betting plan made on Player side other than 1-2 or 2-1 and, truth to be told, the better Banker plan is toward getting anytime streaks (2-3 or 3-2).

Yet our main issue isn't just focused to always get the most likely events, but to get the events having the lower variance impact.
And since baccarat card distributions are always slight privileging the "chopping mood", I think it's wiser to include singles on our long term betting plan even on B side.

Example

Our shoe portion will be as BBPBPPPPBPBBBPBPBBPPPPPPBBPBPPBPBBB

That is, 2,1,1,3,1,2,2,1,1,3 on B side and 1,3,1,1,1,3,1,2,1 on P side.

Since we are actually or fictionally betting 1-2 or 1-3 situations on both side by a two step progression, we'll get:

Banker: + - + - + + +  -
and
Player: + + + + + - - +

Of course our winning probability is determined by the chance to get at least one of the two outcomes out of possible threes by an average 75% ratio and we know that we'll get higher 75% ratios on P side betting 1-2 events and 1-3 events on B side.

But we can't care less about those long term ratios as we want to restrict their variance by adding some "unlikely events" (singles on B side and triples on P side) that could help us to get the best of it even when those unlikely shoes coming up along the way.

Detecting the possible actual shoe flow

After testing millions of shoes, we can state that there are many shoes presenting all 1-3 B side situations and at a higher degree many 1-2 P side situations. And of course, an all 1-3 or 1-2 patterns shoe must show up at the very start of it.
I mean that what was not presenting at the start of the shoe it will be less probable on the subsequent fragments of it as randomness will most likely act by clusters, especially on finite samples.

Long term probability

For example, betting after 1-2 or 1-3 events got two or more consecutive losses on any side, will reduce the average probability to get subsequent losses as now the W/L ratio can't be lower than 75%, actually it will be a lot lower than that on average.

If our strategic plan dictates to bet whenever we'll get two losses in a row on any side tripling up our original bet after a two-step loss, we can't experience any failure.
 

as.

Hi AsymBacGuy,
     Would you explain how you got the + and - for banker and player.
      Please continue to elaborate on this most intriguing topic.
      I’ve been waiting so long to learn the valuable lessons that you have to offer.
      I truly appreciate your vast knowledge.

You are too kind, thanks a lot!

Per every shoe think and register what happens on red (B) and blue (P) sides in terms of 1,2 and 3s.
A vertical registration (for example at Gold Coast casino in Vegas some displays use it) would be a better tool than the common horizontal display registration.
Whenever the last outcomes are 1,2 or 2-1, 1-3 or 3-1 you'll start the fictional or real betting hoping that the third outcome (3 on 1-2 and 2-1 betting; 2 on 1-3 and 3-1 betting) will remain silent as long as possible.

If you decide to apply a 1-2 betting progression (for example $20 on the first bet and, if lost, $40 on the second bet) you'll sign a + sign. Otherwise (both bets are lost) you'll write a - sign.
Naturally a + sign means a +1 unit (minus the vig if appliable) and a - sign means -3 units.

Unfortunately this approach get rids of some uniformed single outcome situations that can't be the signal of any fictional or real betting.
For example a "good looking" shoe as a starting 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1 sequence happening on P side won't elicit any betting.
Good news are that those sequences are not accounted only if they started at the very beginning of the shoe. In every other shoe position they are very very good.

At the same token, a sequence like 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-2 isn't so good to start the 1-2 betting as a kind of "singles consumption" happened at the very start of the shoe and the same is even more true if the initial sequence was 2-2-2-2-2-2-2-1.
Actually sequences like those are more likely to produce instant losses than wins (that is a 3 appearance on both examples).

Contrary to popular belief, with some experience you'll get a better idea of how things work most likely itlr, but never in terms of numbers but in terms of distribution and probability fo success expectation.

And in reality the probability to get a shoe only formed by P singles and P doubles is quite lowered if the initial sequences were those as depicted above.

Another common misconception is to consider "good shoes" and "bad shoes".
Good shoes being something like (on any B P side): 1-2-1-1-2-1-2-2-1-1-1-2 (+ + + + + + + + + +) or 1-2-1-3-2-1-3-3-2-3-1-2-3 (+ - - - + - - -).

Applying the march without any additional hint, in  the former shoe will get a +10 units (minus the vig) and in the latter a -16 units loss).
Those shoes are just the effect of the same probability working per every single shoe but not surprisingly you'll get more #1 shoes on P side and #2 shoes on B side than opposite situations.

Since we don't want to join a baccarat table to guess every hand or most part of every hands, we must restrict our field of intervention at the cost to miss some favourable opportunities.
Notice that in the example #1 our task was quite easy: we followed the 1-2 more expected P flow.  In the latter example, a high mix of 1,2 and 3s came along the way so we weren't in the position to guess a fkn nothing (except if that sequence was on B side so wanting to generally bet toward B streaks).

Trying to get many easy As march winning shoes is just a silly move as we must expect a nearly proportional amount of losing shoes, thus we have to classify by this march standards a very large number of shoes and this is done in terms of simple  + and - sign successions.

So any single shoe must be transformed into a + - succession on both sides no matter how were the actual 1,2 and 3 results.

After doing this we should remember the mathematical implications of such endeavour.

For every 2-step progression involved, the probability to win is about 75% and 25% is the remaining probability to lose.
Thus itlr we'll expect to get a lot more W clusters than W isolated events and the same about having more L isolated situations than L clustered situations.
Going up we'll get more WWW situations than WW situations than WWW events and more LLW situations than LLL events. And so on but we do not need to go so deeply.
From a mathematical point of view and knowing that we are taking into account 8 different two event patterns (1-2, 2-1, 1-3 and 3-1 on two sides), the spots where some W clustered situations would be more likely to show up clustered along the way shouldn't be a concept so difficult to grasp.

as.

True, yes, but.....you still do not know when they are coming. 

I will apologize now and I am not attempting to discredit one thing you are saying, not one!  However:

The Parade Stomping on the March of the 1's, 2's and 3's is always there, no matter what, IMO.  And the mafia knew this when they imported this game from Cuba in the 1950's to Las Vegas............................................

"I will win if I wager on what will happen the majority of the times".  Correct!  Yes, absolutely.  Just the only problem is, ‘it’ has to happen that way while you are there and wagering on it.

I called my friend and he is kind of a math wiz especially with analytical reporting and laboratory stuff that we do in my business.  We use a ton of mathematical things in our ‘compound quantitation reports’ that are actually similar to 1-10 numbers presented in varying forms according to the laboratory results and how they were achieved, etc.  I asked him, run 8 decks of cards according to baccarat rules 10 million times, and tell me how many times there were runs/streaks of greater than 3 in a row for either the banker or the player.

It came to right at 588,235 times there was 4 or more repeating runs from 4 to over 20 in a repeating stage.  So yes, bottom line—there are far more 1’s, 2’s and 3’s than anything else in baccarat.  To the tune of say just over 1 shoe in 17 will have streaks of 4 or greater if you divide the results equally among the 10 million shoes.  The key thing though, is dividing it equally.  And depending on the cut and the shuffle, the next 10 million shoes will be different.  Etc., and so on.

But, and a huge BUT!!  Those results will be different each time it is run and never (NEVER) equally divide among the series of shoes being played or tested because  the shuffles and cut cards will 100% change those results.  But regardless, you still do not know which shoes will have what, as the next 5 shoes you sit down to gamble, might have a much greater result of 4 or more repeating bankers or players than the next group of 5 shoes which might have virtually all 3's or less.  Etc., etc., etc., and so on with an infinite amount of possible combinations.

And with 9,411,765 times that the 1’s, 2’s and 3’s will be combined in varying stages of presentments when 4's or greater should not be around at all---but just might (?), wagering for the cut to me, IMO, is extremely dangerous.  Unless, you are playing only one or two hands every several months or once a year.

Hi Al!
I fear that I've badly expressed the concept about "3s": I name 3s as any streak of 3 and higher.

@sputnik. I know. Actually it's since my first apparition here that I've mentioned the same concept in my defunct "dispositions and distributions" topic. :-)

as. 



 

I understand what you meant, Al! 

I'm not advocating a general cut betting plan, actually a 1-3 plan means to bet toward 3s after a 2.
Maybe you never watched me playing, if I'm winning after getting those favourable 3s (not mentioning that I do not utilize this plan alone) and the 3s are 5s, 6s or longer streaks I'll ride them frantically.
Of course I need a 3 apperance to think that a streak could last, I need some previous clustered 3s outcomes and many other situational events that cannot be easily expressed.

You know very well what i'm talking about: following "drivers" who seem to not lose a single hand, shoes containing back to back ties with no end, observing the opportunites of one side  constantly showing 0,1 or 2 initial points, one side always getting a picture as third card and so on.

I'm sure you can add more on that 

as.


 

 

   

 

We have both written about this stuff.
 

Exactly. :-)

as.