Step #1.
To be ahead of the game we have to get more wins than losses. Easier to say than done. But any bac player should remember this.
We do not need to be rocket scientists to do that: itlr betting Banker and its related distributions will provide more W than L. Period.
The obvious problem is that any W won't be counterbalanced by the L weight but only FROM AN ECONOMICAL POINT OF VIEW.
Therefore we must operate either in form to raise the  general W probability or, more likely,  to restrict at most the W appearance within the shortest periods of betting.

(Correct IMO.  However, most players fall prey to what so many attempt to sell or teach on the internet and over simplify the game with almost no teaching or detailing out the psych and decision making process so vague to so many.  As well, 'false positives', meaning, the bad effect winning has on even intelligent players causing them to forget everything and only focus on the larger wins that will make up for all their losses, etc.)  (Shorter and quicker is better, but has to be with meaning and substance with complete focus and extreme frame of mind regarding your risk capital, buy in and the purpose of that buy in)

Step #2

Math gurus and fkn bac pseudo experts abounding on internet will teach us that every bac bet is EV-

This is a total bullsh.it statement.
It could be true whether any resolved hand is totally independent from the previous one and, of course, if the game isn't finite (that is determined by a finite deck). 

For example, we know that sooner or later a 4 Player streak formed by no asymmetrical hands is a perfect EV=0 disposition (actually it could have a EV+ due to card distribution). We know that such P streak isn't the product of 0.4932 x 0.4932 x 0.4932 x 0.4932 probability.
The same is about a Banker 4 streak not forming one or more symmetrical hands in between.
In this case the probability is just 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5.
Various streaks at either side will come out at different times but itlr the number of different mix of as/s hands tend to be correspondent to the expected values.

(There are times when a player can clearly see the negativity as well as the positive sections within the game if he focuses the correct way with complete neutrality, which is extremely difficult to do on a continual playing basis.  Very hard.  But possible.  Over confident and counting those chickens before they are hatched, is the worst thing you can ever do at baccarat.)

Step #3

The most important thing in order to take advantage of what I've written so far is restricting at most our probability of success per each series of bets we wish to place.
In a given infinite succession of pseudo coin flips, trying to win one unit in two consecutive attempts by a kind of progressive wagering must invert to our favor the general 75% probability.
At baccarat this 75% W probability may come out or not, it's our duty to select the spots where such probability could be higher or lower.
Thus it's not about how we'll raise our bets.

Why 2 consecutive wagers are better than 2+ wagers or a succession of single bets followed by a kind of progression on next bets?

Easy answer.   
Variance acts by steps. Our bets must be winning on the very first bet or the second one. The rest will sink into the uncontrollable variance ocean. And such ocean may present several consecutive deep holes we can easily fall into.
Restarting to bet will be covered later about step #5. 

(Everyone eventually develops a different playing style and belief of the game.  Yours will win and mine will lose,  The other guys will always lose.  Yet another player might always win for a period of time using yet a 4th one.  Nothing can hold up on a continual basis.  Better than anything that even will score a 60% favorable chance to win, would be complete neutrality of the player and catch that 5% or 10% or 15% of the times that seem impossible to predict, guess ot get on the winning side.  I hope you understood that statement.  IMO, most of us tend to want to be in the over 50% winning section and avoid the losing wagers.  How about, attempting to see those sections that wipe everyone out or 'cut', etc.? )

Step #4

416 cards can arrange in numerous ways, yet it's more likely that what happened first won't be perfectly balanced by the next outcomes of the same shoe as the previous card distribution must affect subsequent card dispositions (not results).

(There are many answers in the details I outlined about 'Sections and Turning' Points, etc.  That will always apply within every shoe.)

Step #5

Besides strict statistical issues, everything comes in handy to ascertain what's the best course to take: if a given negative pattern had come out, odds are it will represent again on the same shoe.
Predominance, cards issues, overall other players' outcomes, turning points, Alrelax wrote a lot of interesting and valuable  topics about this.

A final note, a kind of gift: study the shoes where the very first pattern is a 3+ streak on any side (especially on B side). You'll find valuable spots to bet into the subsequent hands by a 99.9% accuracy.

(There is a very unique pattern/trend that usually does present itself after the first strong repeating section, no matter if that was B or P, and as well, no matter if it was 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 repeaters in a row after say 10 or 15 hands of 1s, 2s and 3s or any combination of those, such as 1s and 3s, then a 5 or 6 or 7 streak or more and than, at that point thereafter for a whole section is usually the hottest and best an experienced player can ever look at, at least the majority of times, all IMO and experience.)

And the Step # 5 talked about above, is one of the easiest and best sections that will usually develop for the player. Do not ask what that might be, as it can be anything from 15 alternating chops, to 4 consecutive streaks of 7 to 10 Bs and Ps, to 4s and 5s of both side with 5 Fortune 7s, or many other things.  It is just after an extended period of hands, that an upcoming section with a turning point, will appear as well as naturally go away.  That is the time to parlay, side wager, stack it up, etc., etc. 

Ok with your points Al.

But we ought to remember that the probability that properly dissected patterns happened in the previous shoe will repeat in the same position and in the next shoe are virtually zero. Let's safely say zero point zero.
This is a good starting point, imo.

as.





   

BTW, it's time to put in practice for BS members what I've been stressing here and there for years.

Let me know when you can join me in Vegas and you'll get an idea what I'm talking about.
I'll take any side action, obviously for free.

If you'll lose after a coup,le of sessions, I'll promptly cancel my name here and there.
Of course it won't' be the case. :-)

as.

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on October 07, 2018, 10:50:54 PM
Ok with your points Al.

But we ought to remember that the probability that properly dissected patterns happened in the previous shoe will repeat in the same position and in the next shoe are virtually zero. Let's safely say zero point zero.
This is a good starting point, imo.

as.

I never said or meant to imply previous shoes or future shoes will copy the instant shoe you are playing or have played.

But at times they do and on the other hand at times they will not, and they will not by far. But when they do you have to have the neutrality in order to recognize it and then stop after some good instant larger wins.

I hope that's understandable what I just said to most of the people here





   

More than inviting people to play with me FOR FREE and putting my name on it I can't.
Telling that I'm mentoring $10k or more betting players won't' help, I guess.

as. 

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on October 07, 2018, 10:50:54 PM
Ok with your points Al.

But we ought to remember that the probability that properly dissected patterns happened in the previous shoe will repeat in the same position and in the next shoe are virtually zero. Let's safely say zero point zero.
This is a good starting point, imo.

as.

Virtually yes but it will happen.  I've seen this concept and have played it some in the past.  I don't know what "properly dissected patterns" means.  Best to pick a pattern that is less common than others.  But it has to be a series of decisions and I'm not sure if betting 12 will suffice.

Quote from: Jimske on October 08, 2018, 04:05:34 PM
Virtually yes but it will happen.  I've seen this concept and have played it some in the past.  I don't know what "properly dissected patterns" means.  Best to pick a pattern that is less common than others.  But it has to be a series of decisions and I'm not sure if betting 12 will suffice.

Forget the 12.

Example.
We choose to progressively wager vs the very first 5 hands happened in the past shoe.
Say it was BPPBB
Now we bet PBBPP
Odds to win are 31/32, actually such odds are slightly inferior as a betting sequence dictating to wager more P than B will be less likely to show up.

Notice that if the first target didn't contain any asym hand, on the next shoe our odds are more prone to get more B hands, thus damaging our plan as it involves to bet three P and just two B.

Therefore, one of the theorical best approach is to wait a specific 5 hand pattern involving or not one or more asym hands.
Say our target provided a PPPPP sequence.
Our plan is to bet BBBBB.
But we should know HOW such PPPPP pattern had come out.
From a mathematical point of view, a 10 hand pattern should contain, on average, one asym hand. If such hand didn't come out on the first 5 hands, odds are it'll come out on the next ones.

Split the shoe into multiple 5 hands fragments, that is nearly 14-15 sections (ties included).

Any 5 hand section which previously got one ore more asym hands won't be considered. We want to bet only sections that didn't feature any asym hand.
Even if our real betting action crossed just one asym hand, our overall expectation on B bets will be: 57.93%, 50%, 50%, 50%, 50%. That is 51.586%.
Now we are playing a 51.586%/48.414% game that is better than a 50.68%/49.32% ratio.

Then say that we will be playing just the exact sections not featuring any asym hand for 3-4 or more situations.
Of course we'll lose the sections where sym hands will come out plenty thus favoring the banker but itlr pure 50/50 deviations must include asymmetrical spots.

I mean that if  3-4 or more 5-hand same sections hadn't featured any asym hand, the probability to get the banker advantage is endorsed.
After all, the probability to get 5 P hands in a row in the exact position on the next shoe NO MATTER HOW SUCH HANDS HAD DEVELOPED IN THE PAST and for consecutive times is very very very slim.

Imo at baccarat we shouldn't want to guess a fkng nothing, we just play the probabilities.

as. 

Hi AS I like your method very much, I will just share one thing I notice - the LW does not have to generate a win, they can be left as break even when wagering and one single win after a LW create two in a row LW W and is very common or you get two direct wins W W. This means you can wagering 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 and so on ... very smooth progression winning two in a row.

I have been testing both sides at the same time to speed up the selection process to get a quicker feel for what I am up against.
Been using 300 trails samples with TRNG.

The selection works great and I sometimes peak at +6 or +8 with a 300 sample that would be several shoes in a row.
But I also have been having samples with strong variance, but then I did not have to place higher bets then 2 units and peak at +2 or +4 units.

Cheers

Glad to hear that Sputnik!

And of course there's no need to play a lot of hands or every shoe dealt.
At baccarat you can join the game whenever you want (providing some open seats are available)

If we are driving off road in the desert and some light rain is coming, we do not know if our path will be flooded by a heavier rain. So it's better to stop our ride trying to reduce at most the very unlikely case that we'll find us stuck right in the middle.

as.
 

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on October 07, 2018, 11:06:34 PM
BTW, it's time to put in practice for BS members what I've been stressing here and there for years.

Let me know when you can join me in Vegas and you'll get an idea what I'm talking about.
I'll take any side action, obviously for free.

If you'll lose after a coup,le of sessions, I'll promptly cancel my name here and there.
Of course it won't' be the case. :-)

as.

The P 12 concept beginning to break down.  Admittedly my small hand test of live shoes not a good example. Still have a .49 u/shoe net win.  So I was curious since you ran significant number of trials what your flat bet net win is.   And I found the second bet after the first loss to be a net loss.

The LIAR continuing shoe to shoe were the expected "half as much."  So 20 2LIAR , 10 3LIAR, 5 4LIAR, etc.  I always consider the LIAR category a "tell" that the method is in line with the EV.

 

And I found the second bet after the first loss to be a net loss.

That's correct. And that's why we should consider certain second bets as first bets, meaning that sometimes we have to wait a fictional loss without betting.
Now our second bet becomes a first bet and it won't be followed by another "second bet".

As I've sayed numerous times here, key word at baccarat is 1. We must win the very first hand of any sequence we wish to play as it's more likely to be +1 from 0 than to get 0 from -1. 
And for that matter a series of -1 situations (from 0 to -1) won't affect the next attacks operated on the same shoe, actually they just slightly endorse the probability to lose more.

The overall amount of W and L will balance itlr but almost never in the same shoe. Thus we could use the WIAR, LIAR or anything else related to that as a termomether of the shoe water: we can't get a warm or hot water from a cold or icy water and vice versa.

Imo the important thing to remember is to let it go strong cold temperatures without betting a dime and not trying to get something from adverse conditions. And of course not trying to get too much whenever tepid or warm waters show up.

But before playing we always need to set up a precise target to look for and not only trying to adhere instinctively to what the actual shoe is producing.

as. 

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on October 09, 2018, 11:29:38 PM
Forget the 12.

Example.
We choose to progressively wager vs the very first 5 hands happened in the past shoe.
Say it was BPPBB
Now we bet PBBPP
Odds to win are 31/32, actually such odds are slightly inferior as a betting sequence dictating to wager more P than B will be less likely to show up.

I've played many shoes where the first 5, 10, 14 hands (sometimes including ties) have mirrored the previous shoe exactly.

I've also included strategies were once a 5 hand sequence has failed (LLLLL), then to play the exact 5 hand sequence in the exact same spot on the next shoe at a much larger chip level, only for it to fail AGAIN.  Yeah crazy but true and incredibly frustrating.

Afterwards when you think things over, you finally realize (or maybe not) that you the player are introducing a human element into the game were it doesn't exist..

The cards of the subsequent shoe process no knowledge whatsoever of the prior shoe, any patterns of the prior shoe, or were they occurred. Yet you as the player have applied some mystical expectation that because of what occurred in 1 shoe, it shouldn't occur again, sorry to burst your bubble, but that is pure fallacy.

Also from my own vast table experience, risking 5 bets to win 1 single bet, is not a good option, unless you are extremely clever with your staking options, such as running multiple wagering options, maybe at different stake levels. 

Again I know what I'm talking about when it comes to this type of play, having played strategies that risked 6 losing bets just to win 1, very successfully a few years back, winning 20+ consecutive sessions profiting over $40K in that period, as well as assisting a friend turn a negative life time casino balance into a positive balance.      

Because LLLLW, LLLW, LLLLW for example,, means the bet selection is working, as it is not failing, yet the win to loss ratio horrendous.  5 Column bet options, I've used them extensively.  I agree regarding the comment implementing virtual losses, cuts down the number of bets placed in a negative expectation game, requires more patience from the player, although if you have a very big bankroll, you can circumvent this by incorporating two games into one and decent manipulation of the ratios between the 2 staking levels.  

You are right, no human element should be applied into the game and that's why I kept stressing about asym and sym hands, average shoe composition, lenght of certain patterns and so on.

Everything we wish to set up must be more math sensible than we can, then statistics will help us a lot (imo).

Example.
For one time we do not want to win, instead we just try to find spots where symmetrical hands will come out then always betting Player.
If in our endeavour we'll find 100% of sym spots, no matter the results, we know to play an EV=0 game.
Itlr the house will get zero from our bets.
Conversely our Banker bets will suffer a lot from such play as we'll get 0.95:1 on our winning wagers.

Naturally it's impossible to find only sym spots when betting Player, thus our hope is to reduce at most the asym hands probability on such spots, transforming the game into a lesser negative EV.

On the other hand, we do not need to spot precise asym hands as the advantage on such hands is so high when betting Banker side that we could think just in terms of range of apparition. No matter the results.

Now, asym/sym average ratio is well defined as well as its volatility (sd) with the important caveat that every single shoe is finite and card dependent.

Simplyfing (in my book I've explained everything) we should choose to put in action two distinct players playing for us, one betting B on the ranges thought to be more prone to give asym hands and the other one betting P when we think that in those spots wagered a sym hand will come out.
Of course such way of thinking needs a very diluted betting strategy.

Properly wagering in this way not only will reduce the house advantage on P hands (actually some sym hands will favor the P side for card distribution issues) but will enlarge the expectation on our B hands, hopefully inverting the house edge to our favor.

What are the statistical issues favoring us ITLR?

- There's virtually no one single shoe not forming at least one asym hand;

- Actual results of sym or asym hands don't affect our overall plan, we must think in term of EV;

- Asym hands have a general probability to come out consecutively or short gapped and a specific probability to come out depending upon the cards already removed from the shoe;

- Asym and sym hands ITLR will form polarized patterns if we split the shoe into two distinct columns (B and P).

- Sym hands are coming well more likely consecutively than singled shaped, it's up to us to ascertain the portions of the shoe when such math propensity will happen most and how long. This process needs a lot of virtaul observing.

According to those premises, we see that  consistently winning is just a long term process needing a lot of patience and observation and that it can't disjointed from a strict math foundation.

as. 
 

Just hopping in to give my 2 cents, in gambling and games of chance there are always chances against others, hopes against hopes, a degree of uncertainty in general...however, we CAN be sure about something, this is that eventually everything happens, sooner or later, but just a matter of time.


Therefore, despite probability of x event remains the same, the order of any event is subject to variance and when the order changes some events get closer while other far apart from each other, you cannot have one without the other.


After all is all about timing which makes the real difference, you can not make order by totals because a "tree" is not the whole "forest", if you get my drift.
So here it is, how a 7 streak could occur without any 2,3,4,5 and 6 streak before it...?!
Bet against a 7 streak, as long as there are streaks of 1,2,3 you keep on betting, with the first 4,5 or 6 streak is signal to stop right AFTER you coup your ongoing betting series.


Not only a 7 streak has to occur against you, but it has to happen BEFORE ANY 4,5 and 6 streak too!
In other words, from 1,2,3 to jump to 7 streak without anything in between, I've never witnessed such thing!
By the signal to quit is not, by any means obligatory, one could decide just to change sides and carry on the same as long as he is not bored and/or tired.


Winning could become a formality if you know when and what to bet, money is just a mean to an end, nothing more!