Quote from: AsymBacGuy on November 28, 2018, 02:31:46 AM
For example, we know for sure that somewhere banker will produce a streak or a given amount of streaks. There's no way that a given shoe will produce just one B streak, but we surely know that very rare given shoes won't produce a P single.
The answer is easy: streaks consume a well more room than singles but B side is more prone to produce streaks as it's more likely to happen.

Right, very rare.  But lesser productions of P single not so rare and is why I use the 1's as a key to help determine the bias.  We can use a bet placement that exploits this.  Any positive expectation (weighted count, regression to mean, etc.) has escaped me.  Enter the "educated" guess.

QuoteSay we want to bet a very complicated and hyper selected strategic plan oriented to lose only when a shoe won't present a P single AND at least two B streaks.
We won't lose by 1 billion accuracy.

Assuming you or anyone has identified such it no doubt requires a potential long wait.  Waiting even for Sputnik's Ecart still produces the problem with variance due to the low odds.  We'd have to be in the neighborhood of 75%+ prediction to make it practical.

Do you disagree?

Jimske you have to understand that I have not developed or made a weighted count system, I only show examples of regression.
I want to explore this territory and see if I can create a weighted count system and share it.
But nothing is complete or under construction.

Cheers

 

Quote from: Sputnik on November 29, 2018, 09:21:14 AM
Jimske you have to understand that I have not developed or made a weighted count system, I only show examples of regression.
I want to explore this territory and see if I can create a weighted count system and share it.
But nothing is complete or under construction.

Cheers

I know.  Just using that as an example.  In BJ we can identify SD by keeping track of cards to get upwards of a 2% advantage.  And depending on the rules we only get a pos EV something like 8 hands per 100.  Assymbac has suggested we can get a positive EV based on certain card depletion which will cause a third card draw and give us an advantage.  If so I'm guessing that the advantage will be far less than in BJ.

OTH, looking at patterns or series seems like a good way to identify future outcomes through SD.  But it seems to me getting an advantage within one shoe an impossible task.

I've always wondered if an individual shoe bias can be correlated with the texture of the cards.  So, for instance instead of individual P and B outcomes we may find greater abundance on one side based on card depletion.  ??

J

sidebar:  looks like I'm prohibited from posting on the other site.  Can't even contact admin.  Says:
"(You have insufficient privileges to reply here.)"  Anybody else having same problem?

"insufficient privileges to reply ". Where is that ?



Dr.  Mabuse

Quote from: Jimske on November 28, 2018, 09:34:34 PM
Right, very rare.  But lesser productions of P single not so rare and is why I use the 1's as a key to help determine the bias.  We can use a bet placement that exploits this.  Any positive expectation (weighted count, regression to mean, etc.) has escaped me.  Enter the "educated" guess.
Assuming you or anyone has identified such it no doubt requires a potential long wait.  Waiting even for Sputnik's Ecart still produces the problem with variance due to the low odds.  We'd have to be in the neighborhood of 75%+ prediction to make it practical.

Do you disagree?

Nope, you are completely right.

We need some time to consistently win in the same way casinos need time to let the math edge or variance destroying players' bankrolls.
Only recreational players try to win every or almost every single situation dealt and that's not possible.

Imo, time and "space" are the two most important factors when playing baccarat.
Time allows math and variance to show up and space is the physical factor that works by time frames.

Spaces can be reduced by bankroll managements, nothing we can do about time but waiting.

as. 

There's an interesting line of thought suggesting that the first half or 2/3 results of a shoe will slightly affect the probability of the remaining outcomes.

More later.

as.








   

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on December 05, 2018, 10:28:10 PM
There's an interesting line of thought suggesting that the first half or 2/3 results of a shoe will slightly affect the probability of the remaining outcomes.

More later.

as.

And in the highest majority of the cases, correct and IMO & experience.  Hence, 'sections and turning points' familiarization and focusing on.

That's nice Al! :-)

Every bac player should think about this.

An almost 50/50 slight dependent distribution will form certain unidirectional results for some time.
Not every shoe will be so polarized but most part of shoes will present such feature.

Of course B/P gaps or other too variance affected outcomes won't give us many of hint.

Say we have won (or lost) 5-6 flat betting units so far (half or more of the actual shoe).

Now, are we going to bet toward the deviations happened so far or to get a kind of balancement situations?

Mathematicians will say it doesn't matter which kind of direction we'll take.
But they are wrong.

Since we cannot guess hands, the more we'll play the higher will be the probability to get opposite results already gotten, thus taking an unidrectional strategy sooner or later (I'm speaking about 4-5 shoes not more) will surely fail.

After 5 shoes played, the probability to be ahead is just 20% or so.
Thus, after 5 shoes, the probability to get some opposite results is very high at some point.

Guess what?

Balancements are going to appear when deviation situations will cross a 2 or 3 cutoff point.
Nobody wants to play a 2 or 3 or higher negative proposition hoping to get a single positive outcome, therefore a smart player would know when things are going to change.

I mean that it's not wrong to follow a positive pattern providing to have secured a profit, but it's highely recommended to stop the betting toward positive deviations whenever a 2 or 3 negative step is going to show up.

More on that tomorrow

as.
 



   









 

Waves!

After years of studying baccarat I've come to the conclusion that the only way to win at this game is by properly assessing the number and distribution of BP shifts per each shoe.

Each shoe features an average probability to get this or that, first we should restrict the number of such this and that.

We cannot care less about long streaks, they are the best way amateurs try to get a profit by.
Long streaks or homogeneous patterns or predominance factors are just post hoc findings.
They will come at the right time or not.
As players we are compelled to restrict the "right time" within "now" or "very shortly" terms. A thing that the random world is laughing at.

Baccarat shifts move more from P to B than from B to P but itlr (and intermediate terms too) the number of BP shifts is equal, actually is slightly oriented to get more shifts than a perfect 50/50 proposition dictates.
Such conclusion came from testing millions of shoes.

We know that in a 50/50 perfect proposition itlr the number of singles and doubles will be very close to 75%.
Of course B singles and B doubles itlr will get a lesser amount than 75% compensated by the P outcomes.

Really?

No way.

A large sample study about sd values calculated on 3+ or 4+ streaks formed on both sides tell us that the number of shoes featuring a low than average number of such streaks will outbalance the number of shoes featuring a higher than average number of those streaks.

Of course along any shoe the probability to get an higher than average number of such streaks will come out more often than not whether those streaks had come out by a higher pace than expected.

Why?
Because actual card distribution which produced such "unexpected" long streaks has consumed space to get the more likely shifthing mood.
And the same is true regarding more likely situations.

The effect is working on every shoe dealt in the universe but it's more likely to happen when we have reasons to think that the distribution won't be perfectly random.

And in the actual bac world we're not betting against pc distributions.

as.

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on December 18, 2018, 11:59:58 PM
After years of studying baccarat I've come to the conclusion that the only way to win at this game is by properly assessing the number and distribution of BP shifts per each shoe.

Each shoe features an average probability to get this or that, first we should restrict the number of such this and that.

We cannot care less about long streaks, they are the best way amateurs try to get a profit by.
Long streaks or homogeneous patterns or predominance factors are just post hoc findings.
They will come at the right time or not.
As players we are compelled to restrict the "right time" within "now" or "very shortly" terms. A thing that the random world is laughing at.

Baccarat shifts move more from P to B than from B to P but itlr (and intermediate terms too) the number of BP shifts is equal, actually is slightly oriented to get more shifts than a perfect 50/50 proposition dictates.
Such conclusion came from testing millions of shoes.

We know that in a 50/50 perfect proposition itlr the number of singles and doubles will be very close to 75%.
Of course B singles and B doubles itlr will get a lesser amount than 75% compensated by the P outcomes.

How do you figure if singles = 18 and doubles (9 per shoe) = 18.  That's 36 or 50%. 

Merry Christmas everyone, happy holidays and may the new year bring you all that your heart desires! God bless.

Thanks LungYeh,

Merry Christmas!!!

as.

Very soon a strict mechanical method which should help us to define when, how much and how long to bet.

as. 

Sometimes casinos are working hard to get something in our favor...

A couple of months ago a large casino introduced two EZ baccarat tables where  Dragon and Panda wagers were not removed after a tie.
That means that we could cut off a 9.5% percentage from the losing hands making Dragon bet an EV+ wager.

Do you think the house did realize the mistake?
No way. They simply kept away the tables as almost nobody was playing there...

as.