Imo to win at baccarat itlr, our plan must be considered in cycles adhering at most by taking into account just two steps:

1-  winning the first hand wagered is of outmost importance;
2- winning the second hand whether the first was lost.

This simple two step wagers plan considered by cycles must have each a higher 75% of success.

When it happens to be wrong at both opportunities, we need to be very careful to place more bets as strong negative variance is going to come out more often than we think.
Thus waiting to get a fictional positive outcome is not sufficient to restart the betting.

The reason is that baccarat is very similar to a coin flip endless proposition, therefore WW, WL, LW and LL sequences are presenting whimsically but itlr they'll be equal.

We cannot guess the lenght of the streaks, therefore we should simplify the problem by considering columns as singled or streaky (any streak).
It doesn't matter what strategy we like to adopt, what really counts is whether how many times we'll win the first or the second hand (really or fictionally), then classifying the results.

Since any bac shoe is a finite limited model, we know that more often than not a losing series won't be balanced by a perfect counterpart and the same is true taken in the opposite direction.

I mean that some shoes cannot be played at all as we do not want to find us in the position to guess the opposite of what our plan is dictating.

In a word, we'll be in a far better shape not playing certain shoes not fitting our plan at the start than trying to follow the actual shoe or, even worse, trying to hope to get balanced outcomes that have no room to show up.

Professional players like to bet a lot on very few spots and they never want to chase previous losses and it's not a coincidence that they'll stop the betting after two consecutive losses.

as.

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on February 18, 2019, 02:44:56 AM
Imo to win at baccarat itlr, our plan must be considered in cycles adhering at most by taking into account just two steps:

1-  winning the first hand wagered is of outmost importance;
2- winning the second hand whether the first was lost.

This simple two step wagers plan considered by cycles must have each a higher 75% of success.

When it happens to be wrong at both opportunities, we need to be very careful to place more bets as strong negative variance is going to come out more often than we think.
Thus waiting to get a fictional positive outcome is not sufficient to restart the betting.

The reason is that baccarat is very similar to a coin flip endless proposition, therefore WW, WL, LW and LL sequences are presenting whimsically but itlr they'll be equal.

We cannot guess the lenght of the streaks, therefore we should simplify the problem by considering columns as singled or streaky (any streak).
It doesn't matter what strategy we like to adopt, what really counts is whether how many times we'll win the first or the second hand (really or fictionally), then classifying the results.

Since any bac shoe is a finite limited model, we know that more often than not a losing series won't be balanced by a perfect counterpart and the same is true taken in the opposite direction.

I mean that some shoes cannot be played at all as we do not want to find us in the position to guess the opposite of what our plan is dictating.

In a word, we'll be in a far better shape not playing certain shoes not fitting our plan at the start than trying to follow the actual shoe or, even worse, trying to hope to get balanced outcomes that have no room to show up.

Professional players like to bet a lot on very few spots and they never want to chase previous losses and it's not a coincidence that they'll stop the betting after two consecutive losses.

as.

You are so correct in so many ways.  Great summation, but as I have problem also---is explaining it in detail so all understand.  Just too much.

BTW, the first two wagers or three in fact are almost always vital to the real-serious player, unless you are grinding small min amounts of wagers of course.

Here is something I found from my Blog that I believe fits in here well, IMO:

"And, in my book--you are NOT going to accomplish that by what the highest majority of players say here on this board as well as the other message boards.  No possible physical way!  I have truly been there and done that thousands and thousands of times.  You know, baccarat is strange--extremely strange because  tonight you can win or lose by doing same exact thing you did last time.  Baccarat is NOT like cooking--where there is a certain and a proven way to prepare a dish.  It doesn't change--unless you the chef changes it.   You have a perfect recipe and you repeat it, it will come out the exact same every time.  Same thing with, troubleshooting a motor vehicle.  Same equipment, same procedure, same results doing the same thing.  You know, baccarat is more like hunting.  Exactly.  Different course, different outcomes, different chases, different rewards, different amount of success and different amounts of failure.  Same game!  Also, two hunters can start at the same line with the same equipment, and finish with drastically different results at the end of the hunt session.  Just like the game of baccarat.  It is how we, myself and you and them--handle ourselves, our money--our thought process and our visions-desires-wants--our realization and how each accept the losses or the wins within each shoe and session we play."

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on February 18, 2019, 02:44:56 AM
Imo to win at baccarat itlr, our plan must be considered in cycles adhering at most by taking into account just two steps:

1-  winning the first hand wagered is of outmost importance;
2- winning the second hand whether the first was lost.

This simple two step wagers plan considered by cycles must have each a higher 75% of success.

When it happens to be wrong at both opportunities, we need to be very careful to place more bets as strong negative variance is going to come out more often than we think.
Thus waiting to get a fictional positive outcome is not sufficient to restart the betting.

The reason is that baccarat is very similar to a coin flip endless proposition, therefore WW, WL, LW and LL sequences are presenting whimsically but itlr they'll be equal.

We cannot guess the lenght of the streaks, therefore we should simplify the problem by considering columns as singled or streaky (any streak).

Good way to minimize no. of bets.  I haven't done the math but the average of repeat "groups" and singleton "groups"(1 or more) is about 2:1 in favor of repeat.

Quote
It doesn't matter what strategy we like to adopt, what really counts is whether how many times we'll win the first or the second hand (really or fictionally), then classifying the results.

Right, but when considering a strategy of betting on these groups it's probably more favorable to bet on the repeat group.  Particularly since part of the singleton group includes a solitary singleton which occurs about half the time.

Quote

Since any bac shoe is a finite limited model, we know that more often than not a losing series won't be balanced by a perfect counterpart and the same is true taken in the opposite direction.

I mean that some shoes cannot be played at all as we do not want to find us in the position to guess the opposite of what our plan is dictating.

In a word, we'll be in a far better shape not playing certain shoes not fitting our plan at the start than trying to follow the actual shoe or, even worse, trying to hope to get balanced outcomes that have no room to show up.

Professional players like to bet a lot on very few spots and they never want to chase previous losses and it's not a coincidence that they'll stop the betting after two consecutive losses.

as.

How do we bet just a few hands or pick shoes and get the best of it?  I don't know what Assym has in mind about this but looking at the repeat dominance on a side to side basis might give some clues.

Some minor health issues have kept me up here in the cold this winter.  But the silver lining is that I've been pouring over different ideas.  This thread has been thought provoking and has allowed me to look at a whole different perspective.  But more on that later.

Start with Assym advocating betting VERY few hands.  How many on average I'm not sure but he does suggest that some shoes are not playable.  This means visual inspection and visual inspection means looking for certain outcomes to decide if the shoe is worth placing a couple bets.  Somewhere back there Assym suggested betting B after a previous P single or double.  I showed the results on two of Alrelax shoes as examples.  But after looking through my "test" data of 50 shoes it appears that it doesn't work too well unless one looks for certain "patterns" or outcomes.  It works better if you look for sections of a shoe that has 1's and 2's - then make the bets he describes.  His comments about groups of singles seem to corroborate my assumptions.  Maybe Assym will opine on that theory?

However, for me that would be a tiresome way to play.  Particularly because where I play there are no back betting, the tables are full and many don't have screens.  But the whole thing got me thinking about patterns and groups.

Then Alrelax enters the conversation and "seems" to agree with Assym.  But, Al plays way more hands than Assym suggests and he uses Turning Points to change bet placement.  Looking for changes in the shoe is nothing new.  Defining them and exploiting them for profit a whole other problem.  I'll move over to Al's thread for further comments.

J

Can you see the naturally common bias in every shoe where two events out of three dominant more than triplets?
For example, a triple would be one single one series of two and one series of three or higher.

The question is how to explore the bias with minimum attempts.
Look at this sample where all sequences have a bias except two triplets.

1
2
1 W
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1

2
2
1
1 W
1
2

1
1
2
1 L
  W
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1 W
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2

1
2 L
1 W
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2

1
1
1
1
1
2
2 W
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1

2
1
1 L
1
2
1 W
2
2
2
1

2
2
1
2 L
2 L
  W
1
1
1
2
2 W
2
1

2
2
1
1 W
1
2

1
2
1 W
1
1
2
1

2
2
1
1 W
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1

2
1
1 L
2
1 W
2
2

1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2 W
1
1
1
2
2

1
2
1 W
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2

1
1
2
2 W
1
1
1
2
2
2
2

1
2
1 W
2
1
2
2
2

1
1
2
2 W
1
1
2
2
2
2

1
2
2 L
2
1
1 L
   L

2
2
1
2 L
1 W
1
2
1
2

1
1
1
1
2
2 W
2
2
2
2
2
1
2

1
1
2
2 W
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
1

2
2
2
1
1 W
1
2
1
2
1
2
1

2
2
1
2 L
2 L
1 W
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
2

1
1
1
1
2
2 W
1
1

2
1
1 L
1
2
2 L
   L
1
1
1
1
1
1

I don't get it. Can you please explain it more thoroughly? Thanks.

Assume you not betting and just want to see the true bias of shoe.

Then singles are by them self as outcomes.
Series of two are by them self as outcomes.
And series of three and higher are treated as the same outcome.

Then you get the principal of 1/3

Now assume you would split each sequence into blocks of two events.

For example you see B P B PPPP BBBBB P B PPP then this is a sequence with two events/outcomes - singles and series of three and higher.
Now look at this sequence BB PP B P BB P B P B P B is a sequence with singles and series of two.
The third sequence is series of two and series of three and higher BB PPP BB PPPPPP BB PP BB PPPPPP BBB PP.

Now if a sequence not include two events/outcomes for three times in a row - a true small bias sequence you will have a triplet - no present bias.

Triplet look like this.

One single and serie of two and one serie of three or higher.
The triplets can come in any combination, one of each.

This means you can compare sequence with two otucomes hitting three times or more creating a true bias or you get a triplet.

Cheers

Thanks for the explanation.  Sometimes concepts difficult to understand without examples.  I'll take a look.  Hopefully other system players will comment.

Thanks all for your replies.

No matter how is the strategy, positive and negative results will come out along according to the binomial probability.
Since our enemy is not the house edge but the variance, we know that part of the shoes will present more negative situations than positive situations even if we are trying to reverse the probability by following trends or altering our strategy.

Imo the better countermeasure to take is not to play the shoes who are not adhering to our plan and not hoping that the following section of the same shoe will balance the previous negative outcomes.

Same is true about those positive shoes which can easily transform themselves into nightmares (Al' turning points).

Following this approach I've schematized my results as:

immediate win= +++
win after a loss= ++
immediate loss= - -
two losses in a row= - - - -

Notice that the total amount is unequal (5 + and 6 -) as there's always a vig working.

Our goal should be oriented to get a zero sum, meaning we are compelled to spot and ride the positive situations and not chasing the negative territory.

Unfortunately as I sayed above, some shoes start negative and remain negative as it's a natural thing that MUST happen.
And negative shoes are presenting negative clusters as well as positive shoes are presenting positive clusters. But remember the different wieght.

as. 



   

It's important to take track of derived roads (four are displayed right on the screen but you can construct infinite roads).

BEB, SR and CPR are three displayed "derived roads" that are representing three different random walks being a direct reflex of hands distribution.
To simplify the issue a bit, BEB represents a 1-step random walk, SR a 2-step random walk and CPR a 3-step random walk.

It's interesting to notice that the main road (the main BP distribution) will almost always form omogenous distributions on derived roads according to the main road.

The most imprtant parameter to look for is the constant asymmetrical distribution on such four distinct situations.

There are several factors that endorse such assumption.

- one is the general asymmetry of the game

- two, cards are depleted once they are used, so the future deck is always asymmetrical even if we do not know which side will be favored by such asymmetry.

- three, the shoe we're playing at is not a perfect random model by any means.

It's up to us to define and restrict the values and assess the limits of such different random walks.

Say we want to restrict the variance effect thus trying to find the situations when A can't be higher or lower than a -4 or +4 B deviation respectively.
We know that whenever such "cutoff" limits are reached we're playing a 100% edge game.
I mean that whenever A reached the -4 cutoff value (or B the +4 value), our bets could only have a positive expectancy.

Thus the main issue is to find opposite situations where A or B can't produce higher deviations than 4.

Secondly we must approach our strategy in order to get the least deviations, even if we know that an 8-step martingale will get the best of it in any case.

Are we going to bet 256 units to win just 1 unit? Maybe, but it's a worthless and risky effort as the certainty to get an 8-step random walk cannot be achieved by 100% accuracy.

Moreover, we shouldn't forget that a continuos +1  -1 random walk provides us a light loss (vig impact).

So what's the best strategy to adopt?

See u tomorrow.

as. 


















   

I have repeatedly witnessed this exact stupidity of wagering, more and more the past 2 years than ever in the past 30 or so.

Some of the players were doing so well with the shoe as well as the previous shoe.  Then they start losing and especially when it is all 1s and 2s and 3s, they begin that relentless drive with a negative progression repeatedly on the opposite side.  Does not matter if it is player or banker on a run, they will wager against it.  Then 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 or 11 repeatedly come out and they all get wiped out, every single one of them. 

Years ago, almost never seen that kind of wagering, but now, all the time.  Today, I see more great patterns and trends so obvious and most of the people playing will not wager with the shoe.  Total disarray in their wagering and beliefs.

Yep Al! Still many players like to wager via strong progressions.

Back to the subject.

When we consider two opposing events A and B having the same (or almost the same) probability to appear, we'll expect deviations according to the binomial model.
Such events could be as simple as a Banker or Player hand or highly complicated specific situations (for example what's the next winning hand after a side had won with a natural 7 vs a drawing hand, etc)

No matter how sophisticated is our approach to select two opposing A and B situations, itlr everything will equalize with the well known unbeatable deviations (burdened with the vig).

Wait.
This is true whether the game is perfectly randomized and it's very difficult to negate that shoes do not present such feature.
Thus in order to try to demonstrate that shoes are not that random, instead of assessing the randomness by statistical tests (chi-square, etc), we should work more empirically, say thinking in more practical terms as it's what really counts.

If I'm able to find out the spots when two opposing situations do not adhere to the common deviations (that is they are more "restricted") I'm on cloud nine.

In fact, there's no way I could spot favourable situations per se, the only hope is to get what I name "limited random walk", a sort of pendulum which moves from the left to the right and vice versa within a restricted range and crossing several times the 0 point.
Since I do not think I'm a genius capable to dispute math laws, the only explanation is that cards distribution of every single shoe couldn't be that random as we think.

Therefore and thanks to my long analysis I dare to state that not every A/B opposing situation will produce the same expected deviations and, more importantly, that not every shoe is playable as some shoes are so polarized at the start that we better get rid off them without betting a dime.
I mean that we can't try to be right on every shoe dealt as many times the possible unrandom effect can't be properly grasped by human eyes.

And this is proven by the fact that no matter how many random walks we wish to set up, a given card distribution will present similar lines on each of them.

Now the question is how to classify a "not playable" shoe.
Next time.

as.

Baccarat provides an important feature many times we forget about.
The casino's winning probability cannot be less than 50% unless bets are placed on Banker side.
Yet the economical return favors casino every bet we'll make.

Thus even if we're the world champion geniuses of bet selection, we are still playing a 48.94% or 48.76% proposition on our winning probability unit wager.

The only way one could lose only 1.06% or 1.24% or an average  mix of two of the total money wagered is by flat betting.
It doesn't matter which kind of selection one utilizes, by flat betting one is math expected to lose from 1.06% to 1.24% of his/her total bets.

Actually most bac players want to recover losses by increasing the bets, but they forget that the more they'll increase the wagers better are the opportunities to lose everything.
The same is about increasing the wagers when positive streaks seem to come out.

There's no one single possibility in the world that after a decent trial of shoes one can get the best of it by increasing the wagers unless certain "battles" provide a very low variance impact.

Say we have found an astonishing -4 +4 random walk working onto two opposite situations.
We know that when the +4 level is reached an unlikely still possible 8 losing streak is going to happen (that is a shifting force going toward -4 point). Are we going to bet?
No fkng way.
The same about a +3 or +2 random walk position.

We do not want to raise our bets to win just one fkng lousy unit, we want to get the best of it by increasing the probability to get one unit profit immediately or, at least, after two bets.

Say we are going to join an HS table after forming a bet selection site team, where each member put $5000 at risk . Our standard unit will be $10.000 and the maximum wager on that table is $20.000.
Our bankroll is $200.000, that is 20 units. That is 40 members.
Our goal will be to win just one unit after 3-4 shoes dealt, so every member will get $250 and the probability to lose the entire 20 bets for each player is very close to zero. Say it's zero.
In fact the probability to win one unit after 3-4 shoes dealt is 99.999%.

Are you going to join such team or do you think you'll get a better edge?

I know many players tell you they'll get a better edge but they are deadly wrong.

We do want to lower the variance at most and, by the way, nobody has shown to you that a given method can get the best of it by such "low" win rate.

Still you can't be wrong about this "silly" method, it's just a matter of waiting the right opportunities to come along.

And actually it's what we do, putting at risk 20 units to win just one unit after 3-4 shoes dealt by 99.999% accuracy.

Imo one needs to risk a relatively huge bankroll to win something after a given period of time, think that casinos are going to put at risk virtually infinite bankrolls to win our miserable buy-ins.

Guess what casinos think when we're constantly betting $100 or $300 (EV- situations) and suddendly we're raising the bets to $10.000 where our EV will be positive.
They'll think we are i.diots, but they'll fear our bets as they need 100 or 33.3 wrong bets to balance our previous no edge wagers.
Situations that cannot come along.

as.   













     






 


 

Summarizing, the main feature why bac can be beaten is because certain spots can't be missed, meaning that probability plays a huge and decisive role in that.

Of course such feature cannot be theorized whether a perfect random world is working, otherwise I have to put into the trash bin all the math involved.
And I can't do this.

as. 

Absolutely spot on, no matter which way you think or desire.

I know in that shoe I posted last night of 23 or so players against he 2 Bankers out there in the very beginning of the shoe, winning large money compared to a relatively small buy in, that if I continued playing, most of it--if not all of it would have gone back to the casino.  Why would someone wager tens of thousands of dollars against what was happening, versus the same amount of those very same wagers with what was happening? Well, IMO, insight, knowledge, experience, desires, expectations, frame of mind, beliefs, false positives overruling and many other things. 

People would come on here and say, wait a second Alrelax, the only way it would have gone back to the casino is if you were foolish, did not apply money management and got unlucky.  Nope, wrong.  Within one or two shoes it would have went back or the highest majority of the win would have anyway.

Sorry, I have been gambling too long.  It was a great win with hundreds of times greater than the buy in.  Leave, be gone a few days, reset and back to my same LEVEL and PLATEAU, I normally wager at in this area and types of casinos I play at. 

THe other people playing, win and win and then they fall because they attempt everything AsymB just outlined.  Hocus Pokus or whatever you want to label it, the numbers and statistics will not consistently hold up at the bac table, day in and day out, grind or pounce on it.  You cannot win and win and win and continue any type of win on a solid consistent basis.  No matter is that is one unit or 100 units each game/shoe. 

If you merge numerous factors of my psych detailed explanations along with numerous factors of what AsymB talks about, you will start to get a clearer picture of how to prevail at bac with insight and understanding, IMO.  There are other members that do contribute and know plenty as well, I am just highlighting what I just read with what I just did as well last night.

I hope this makes sense, to me it does but then again maybe I am just waving that magical wand that Mickey Mouse loaned me from Disney World and I am screaming the words hocus pokus? Maybe, huh?  I do not know.