BetSelection.cc
Highlighted => AsymBacGuy => Topic started by: AsymBacGuy on April 27, 2018, 01:14:45 am

Dedicated to soxfan. :)
We want to bet toward P singles and P doubles vs P 3+s by a multilayered progression.
Betting requisites.
We'll bet a 12 unit progression whenever a P single or a P double had come out, in order to get at least a two P 12 clustered succession in any order. After winning the first (single) or second (double) event, we stop the betting waiting for another 1 or 2 P situation and going over and over. Meaning we have to wait a 3+ appearance cutting the pattern.
In a word, we'll lose anytime the shoe will present situations as 23 or 13. Anything different from that (as 11, 12, 21 or 22), will go in our favor.
The average number of 3+ streaks on P side is 4.5, so we are quite favored to get many 12 or 21 profitable patterns, moreover we won't bet a dime after a 3+ streak. That is consecutive P 3+s streaks won't harm us.
The probability to look at consecutive 1 or 2 single situations is so low that you'll need a lot of work to find them.
Multilayered progression.
Since we are not stu.pid, meaning that the very unlikely can come out anytime, we 'll set up our initial bet as 510 (at $10 limit is $50$100).
Anytime we'll win we stay at the same level for two times, then we'll go down at the 48 level and so on, up to the 12 level.
Anytime we lose we'll raise our bet by 20%, so a 510 losing bet will followed by a 612 bet (at $10 limit, it's a $60$120 bet)
Again, after a win at a given limit we stay at that level for two times globally (once more), then we go to the immediate lower limit.
And so on.
Statistical issues
Shi.t happens either isolated (more likely) or in bleeding clusters (very less likely), thus after a 313 or 323 consecutive pattern appearance I suggest you to not bet a dime until a new fictional 12 winning pattern had come out. Many times this means to wait the next shoe.
Notice that more likely than not, an early P 3+ streak apperance will followed by many 3+ streaks than what the opposite situation will do.
Especially whether such 3+ streak is immediately followed by another identical 3+ streak.
Notice that if you wait some fictional losses, your win rate will be enlarged even more.

Another good rule of thumb is to classify how previous 3+ P streaks had come out, if they come out by winning asymmetrical hands favoring the banker we should wait more favourable situations.
A betting variation is to stay at the same level when losing and raising the bet (by 20% or so) after a win, maybe for 45 times in a row.
Moreover I suggest to use this approach in a EZ bac table, where the HE is lower and for huge sums wagered we can bet the fortune 7bet.
as.

Things are not that simple. Simulate a randomly picked big data of baccarat outcomes to know the real picture. If you can not do so manually, get it coded. Making statements of "unbeatable" is no child's play.

Things are not that simple. Simulate a randomly picked big data of baccarat outcomes to know the real picture. If you can not do so manually, get it coded. Making statements of "unbeatable" is no child's play.
Yep. :thumbsup:
Of course without a math edge, nothing is "unbeatable".
Still this method is far better and simpler than the myriad of miracle systems sold everywhere.
Moreover it was tested over thousands and thousands of simulated shoes, stuff that we are not certain is going to come out on real tables.
as.

The below quote is one of mine:
"The key is, like a lot wagering in bacdo not define events that have to happen and wager on them to happen in order to win, wager on what is happening and/or for the opportunities that are presenting themselves or possibly will if there are indications as to that is what might occur."
I understand the need for many to turn that statement around, but to myselfit is vastly different than a player doing 'blind guessing' and longer series of scheduled wagers that are preset, scheduled and must appear in the order that matches up to your decisions that you are convinced will be produced or perhaps (if you were honest) 'you are hopeful will appear in the same sequence you pulled from statistics', etc.

"The key is, like a lot wagering in bacdo not define events that have to happen and wager on them to happen in order to win, wager on what is happening and/or for the opportunities that are presenting themselves or possibly will if there are indications as to that is what might occur."
Why is your way better?
There is no difference. Baccarat isn't quite a game of independent trials in the same way that roulette is, but for all intents and purposes it might as well be. There are no "indications" of what will happen in either game.

Why is your way better?
There are no "indications" of what will happen in either game.
I do not believe I ever claimed it to work definitively or be better, as you say? If I did, I meant it in the context of 'working' and 'better' for me. I have tried other ways and I attempt to define and explain what works in reality, in B&M for me or does not work for me. I do not engage in theory or simulation with my writing and results thereof, etc.
I hope that clarifies what you say, I claim is 'better'.
But I have definitely found what identifies many of the opportunities that will present themselves in the shoes, that work well for me the majority of the times I play, (IF) I remain free of player distractions, aura, desires and other psychology effects I selfinflict, etc.

"Mine is better"..
"Oh really? What made you think so?
"Well. I think it has to be better."
"OK. does your way work mathematically?"
"No way, House edge won't let it be."
"OK. Wanna get it simulated?"
"Hell no. I know it worked for me and it might not work for anybody else."
"Did you yourself earn good money from it?"
"Not really but I lost a bit lesser than the worst chaps in casino, so it looks better to me".
"Alright. Enjoy it."

I do not engage in theory or simulation with my writing and results thereof, etc.
Yes I've noticed. :D I don't know why, but it's very common for gambler's to think they know better than mathematicians and to distrust or dismiss computer simulations (perhaps because "no one plays a million shoes" ::) ). But maybe I'm being presumptuous. What exactly is your objection to theory or simulation?
It doesn't really make sense to say that something works FOR YOU, because that implies it might not work for someone else. Suppose there are other players at your table who believe that you're the world's greatest bacc player, so they mirror all your bets perfectly. Obviously if it works for you then it must also work for them, and if you're winning they are also winning (and ditto if you're losing).
On the other hand, if it really is the case that your strategies don't work for others, but they do for you, then the only conclusion to be drawn is that your winnings are based on luck, not on the actual strategies. If something works then it works, period. Only if luck is the overriding factor does it happen that the same system/strategy played by different people or at different times results in sometimes winning, sometimes losing. The lack of consistency tells you it's just randomness at work and that the method is worthless.

Yes I've noticed. :D I don't know why, but it's very common for gambler's to think they know better than mathematicians and to distrust or dismiss computer simulations (perhaps because "no one plays a million shoes" ::) ). But maybe I'm being presumptuous. What exactly is your objection to theory or simulation?
It doesn't really make sense to say that something works FOR YOU, because that implies it might not work for someone else. Suppose there are other players at your table who believe that you're the world's greatest bacc player, so they mirror all your bets perfectly. Obviously if it works for you then it must also work for them, and if you're winning they are also winning (and ditto if you're losing).
On the other hand, if it really is the case that your strategies don't work for others, but they do for you, then the only conclusion to be drawn is that your winnings are based on luck, not on the actual strategies. If something works then it works, period. Only if luck is the overriding factor does it happen that the same system/strategy played by different people or at different times results in sometimes winning, sometimes losing. The lack of consistency tells you it's just randomness at work and that the method is worthless.
**********************************************************************************************************
Mike, with all do respect to yourself, I will copy and paste an answer I took a few minutes to just post to Xander, because he is aligned with yourself and your questioning or comments to myself about my posts. And, there is a lack of consistencies within the way I wager on 'playing the shoe' if one analyzes what I wagered on based on what happened or appears on the score board, etc. But I do have huge consistency in the way I gamble with tons of protocol based upon psychology, money management, thinking, emotional feeling, my ability to identify possible identifiable events and opportunities, as well as everything I have written about and explained and took great time to definewrite and exploit. It works great and is profitable to a certain point if one can apply it with all the situations, events and feelings as well as the most fallible of allgamblers self inflicted doom from apply his desires to the unknown results that are being produced to himself that he fails to recognize. Again, I have written about them and since you disagree and do not feel I have the proper intelligence, experience or knowledgewhy read or follow or ask me questions?
But as I said, Here is my answer to you out of respect and courtesy to your question. Quote from me as I said:
Yes, I do and have known that.
Yes, I understand their mathematical skills and knowledge.
Yes, their statistics and their simulations/theories are probably correct for the series and the amount of shoes that they test. I have never challenged those or said those were wrong or inaccurate, not by any means. And if I did, it was meant in the context of what I was sitting in front of or have experienced for the evening or session, etc.
However, I have played this game since Atlantic City came about continuously. I have learned boats loads about the reality of gambling, gambling players, the casino, psychology, the effects of winning and losing, the benefits of deciphering certain things the game brings about, the system of hostingcompsaverage playscasino comp theorymoney managementbenefits of a player remaining neutralreality of bank rolls and buyins, the application of a players mind and what he is engaged in, etc., etc., and so on.
In other words, 'tons of stuff'. I do not play every hand/every situationevent/every shoe the same and have no 'system or preset scheduled beliefs', with wagering schedules, etc. IMO, if one doesyou will at best (hopefully) break even eventually. I wholeheartedly, through my experience believe that there are numerous opportunities and events that might come about and when they dowagering for a definitive type of outcome, will have devastating results to a serious player.
It is the same exact thing in my business of hazardous materials and high risk incident management. I have personally witnessed many very intelligent and highly educated engineers coming on scene in the field during an emergency. Basically they know more than me in countless ways about chemical composition and the technical aspect of the spilled or released product. But as far as cleaning up the site with the Department of Transportation or County Emergency Managers and the State Environmental Officials as well as the EPA, Railroad Environmental Departments or the Bureau of Indian Affairs, with all the other restrictions, rules and regulations we have to and do follow, those highly educated and superuniversity diploma holding professors, engineers and related, are bothersome, get in the way, apply needless information and data having no value whatsoever in the field, do not meet emergency response certifications and lack extreme basic sense and protocols at the sitso many times. There are countless courses, certifications and much needed experience to work in the field, safely, legally and meeting regulations set forth by the state and the federal governments, that renders the type of people with great knoweldge, completely useless and even illegal in the field at an emergency site.
The same thing IMO, holds true for the casino gambling table in so many ways. I do have nonmechanical and non preset wagering that works much higher than the majority of the times for me. I have attempted to identify many of them within my writing here and the reason so many, such as yourselfdo not agree with me and desire to challenge, twist my words around, add innuendoes and sparis that you follow and abide by the mathematical statistics of the game of baccarat. Period. Not much room for discussion because you and some others like yourself will continually challenge, without offering your 'holygrail' that allow you to continually win and be so successful at the game. Are you actually wealthy and very successful in the classical definition of those words at playing baccarat? I don't know about the words and the challenges you consistently offer on the boardleaves many to believe you are. All fine and I am happy for you if you are. But I know, IMO and experience, for the same thing with using the results of both of those individuals you endorse and follow, will allow you to win and lose. Again (IMO and experience) boils down to all the things I have defined, that has nothing or not much to do with the math and the statistics of game as to what will or will not happen. There is so much more to the game of baccarat (in a live casino wagering actual money) rather than sitting at home on the computer in theory or even online gambling.
So the same thing holds true, if you do not employ many or all the this I have written about, defined, suggested and exploited myself, there is no possible way you can multiple and continue winning using your conversion of mathematical statics of the game or by sprinkling magical dust on the cards in front of you, while you go through a one minute ritual of peeling and peeking at the cards themselves. Period, pretty much the end of the story.
So, in this case and all others it is really no darn different than the old fashioned car drag strip. The first one to the end wins. No matter what colors, what training, what beer they drink, whom their sponsors are what energy drinks or soda pop they have decals for or if one is a country boy or an acid rocker with tattoos over his eyes and nipples. Does not matter. If my car beat yours, I was faster, drove better, had more skill and had a better pit crew and took advantage of other situations I found at the time, no matter what they were. As long as I did not get disqualified for cheating or getting caught at cheating, I won fair and square and no matter the reason, I WON! Period. If your car beat mine, the same thing applies to you. Period. However, back in the pits, the same exact thing will be going one that happens at the baccarat table. You will come over to me and say, "Yeah.....but", and then go on about how your lane had a bit of extra oily media & debris that gave me an advantage and only because of that, I was able to beat you but in all actuality, you are better, faster and more experienced than myself, etc., etc., and so on and forth. As you poke me in the chest and tell me all that gibberish and self serving rubbish, while everyone has a beer or a Corona and a lime or a paper plate of nachoscheese and jalapenos in front of them watching and waiting for the fight to break out. And back at the casino, you and others are there pushing money back and forth and applying mathematical statistical data and all that. Great! Fantastic! I begin playing and it is like my buddy HMoney that called me. Say I was at the shoe. When those bankers came along for 6 Bankers right after a 9 handed chopchop, I pounced on itfor whatever reason I convinced myself or that I saw coming. Does not matter the reason. Say I wagered $500.00, parlayed a couple of times. While the rest of the table cited all kinds of 'cut' has to come out reasons. I won 6 times lost once, they lost 5 times and won once. It also happiness with a 20 series chopchop event and as well with a 15 or 20 handed repeating banker or player run.
That same thing I referred to happened at the baccarat table. HMoney my buddy called me a few weeks ago when he was continually losing money at the tables. He tells me, "Hey Glen tell me what I should do. The shoe started out and it was 9 time chopchop and then 6 bankers came out and then 3 pairs of doubles and then 6 more bankers that matched exactly the first little run of bankers". Totally impossible without being there and seeing what the numbers of the winning and losing hands were and many other things. Even then, of coursemy way of identifying events and opportunities work and do not work. The trick that I mastered and serves me well, is within my money management, my side parlays, a bit of positive progressions, my beliefs and ability to identify certain events and as wellhave the knoweldge and the willpower to 'pounce on them' while staying completely neutral and viewing as well as believing, I am using tools instead of money, etc., and everything else (once again stating) that I have written about and that works well or me. Can I lose with my knowledge and my system of beliefs? YES. Can I win with them? YES. But when I won over $40,000.00 the other week I wrote about and posted pictures of, I lost about $15,000.00 of it one night employing what I call stupid statistical intelligence and following what I thought would be another easy and fun win. I was dead wrong and no matter what I did, follow other players, follow myself, listen to dealers, wager on superstition or employ what I did on other shoes or the exact opposite, I would lose. I went against everything I write about and knowin other words I admit what almost no one this board will admit, I was deadon 100% stupid and foolish thinking I could do something that I would overrule and command with knowledge and experience. And the irony of it was, if I did employ and use my 'systems' that I adopted and write aboutI would not have lost that $15,000.00 I brought to the casino. If you cannot or will not think and apply what will govern and assist you to win large and lose small, you will suffer and suffer with great pain at the game of baccarat. Simple, an IMOperiod. You can debate that, I cannot and will not.
So in closing, do my systems work, yes for me. Will they work for another player, sure why not? Are they exclusive to myself? In some ways yes and some ways no. Why? Because I tailor them to my own situation, beliefs and financial position. I truly gamble what I have set aside and I do it with the protocol that my buyins are tools and my tool box is strong and can absorb the loss or loan out of tools until I replace them. I have three sets of financial envelopes. Every week or two I build them or use them for their sources. One is for all household expenses, another is for the kids and my family and future reserves. The third is for gaming. None of the envelopes or banks are ever intermingled, which i learned a while ago is deadon wrong. My buyins are a small portion of my bank roll. My wins far out number the amounts of my losses and I also reset and refresh during a shoe as well as at the end of the shoe and most importantly, at the end of each winning and losing session. I did not at the end of the 3rd one a few weeks ago and that is why I lost $15,000.00 instead of $600.00 to $1,500.00 range. I proved beyond any reasonable doubt to myself that my systems and beliefs and experiencesif intermingled in my own way, work darn good with great safestops and protection.
I hope this clarifies the misunderstanding you have of me and the failure you show in reading the other writings of mine. Quite simply, two people playing a pinball machine, each with their own style, beliefs and mixture of feelings, experiences and knowledge of what might or might not happen can easily succeed numerous times or fail countless times. What leads myself a bit above others,most timesis my ability to cut losses while or before they happen and as well, to compound and quickly build winnings far above the average player that analyzes the wrong way into the shoe before it is happening or ever will come about while he is there gambling.
But, as far as following a certain written protocol based upon mathematical statistics that a certain hand or even number of hands will produce a certain outcome in baccarat, is beyond foolish and absurd to me. And, if that does workby all means follow it and stay within the casino without challenging me by twisting my words and looking to spar. Then when you grow tired of winning, contribute that great knowledge you possess to the board here and others.
************************************************************************************************************
"es I've noticed. :D I don't know why, but it's very common for gambler's to think they know better than mathematicians and to distrust or dismiss computer simulations (perhaps because "no one plays a million shoes" ::) ). But maybe I'm being presumptuous. What exactly is your objection to theory or simulation?"
I have no objection to it. But, IMOit does not belong at the table for wagering decisions on a consistent and ritual basis. We/I are actually playing those very trivial amount of shoes each session that is the smallest and tinyest section of what made up those numbers. And, those are the ones that contain everything but what those statistical averages total to. Or in some cases, can be the exact representation of those statistical averages learned and published. But in either case, if a gambler fails to employ what I have written about, detailed, explained and found to be true the highest majority of times with money management, psychology, the aura, other players, etc., etc., etc., he will only devastate and destruct himself while gambling.
To address my final concern here, I feel as though your last paragraph is demeaning and an attempt to discredit and/or humiliate. But, I will address it the best I can. You said: "On the other hand, if it really is the case that your strategies don't work for others, but they do for you, then the only conclusion to be drawn is that your winnings are based on luck, not on the actual strategies. If something works then it works, period. Only if luck is the overriding factor does it happen that the same system/strategy played by different people or at different times results in sometimes winning, sometimes losing. The lack of consistency tells you it's just randomness at work and that the method is worthless." I usually say (IMO) and (Works for me), etc., because I don't inflict my ways on others I gamble with, even HMoney and my NYC retired cop life long friend and X'LE' partner. I have other gambling buddies that are casino only friends and coplayers, etc. I don't preach to them or attempt to convince them, sure we might small talk and dare each other, in casino 'spirit and fun' which brings about huge amounts of god camaraderie to usbut I am not ingrained in all the ways so many gamblers and casino players are in baccarat. Meaning, wagering for such and such, because of 'so and so'. And to me, that is what following statistical and mathematics does to a play in baccarat because they all too often forget about everything the game actually takes to win or hold their winnings. I only do that for certain sections and opportunities that I can identify at times when they are happening. Period. There are such opportunities that can be identified by an experienced player, but the problem in definition and as well in profitability of doing thatis that the identifiable event is intangible. You will most certainly stop me shortdisbelief of myself and twist my words such as Xander does and use them against me. That is what you are doing here. On the other hand, I combat randomness by use of everything I have written about, no need to attempt the explanation in shortdefinitive combat here. I Cannon due it because it would involve too many subjects. A lot of those are in that 'Series of 10' articles within my Blog on this board on the first page within the highlighted section.
If you love going to the casino and do well at wagering for a continual 'cut' because of something or say wagering for a SAP/VIN count and all that, great! Do it, I don't go and challenge you and your skill, knowledge or unique findings and positive exploits that allow yourself to win based upon whatever they might be. But you certainly, with definitive nature and wording discount and attempt discredit of what I write about. At least IMO and my interpretations of your statements that reflect directly and solely to myself.

I wholeheartedly apologize to AsymBacGuy for taken that space within your thread as it is kind of 'offtopic' but I answered the question that was presented to me within your thread/room.

Looks good Assym. One reason, as you point out, is the common occurrences of 1's and 2's  representing 50% of decisions. By my way of thinking it is good to have a benchmark, a starting plan. That way there is structure, something that can be explained. You recognize there needs to be adjustments, fictional bets, MM, whatever.

I tend to agree with Alrelax based on my personal gaming experience although I must profess I have the highest respect for Mathematicians (who I have been told in a recent discussion, is at the very top of the intelligence food chain even above the medical folks) and perhaps it is because I lack the IQ to understand their field and how they work.
The defining factor that make any system suitable only to an individual to a smaller or larger extent is the human emotions. Perhaps the mathematicians can formulate all human emotions but for sure even given a certain exact trend then prevailing, humans may react differently because the players at the table are different, the dealer is different, the player just quarrelled with the wife, the player just had a fantastic 50 shades of grey BDSM sex etc etc.
But like I said I don’t understand enough of the power of mathematics. Because I read all the time of computerised share trading systems that make millions for the industry giants lole Goldman Sachs and the like purely on crunching data without regard to human reactions. A few differences are apparent though. These computerised share trading systems are supported by huge amounts of capital that can move the markets making it self fulfilling. It cannot happen on the baccarat tables. If the next round is meant for Banker to win, no matter how much you wager on Player, Banker will still win. Also these computerised share trading systems need lots of data and computer power to come to a recommendation which a baccarat player sitting or standing in the casino will not have the privilege of using. Even for online gaming, the time interval between each round makes it impossible to use such systems.
My 2 cents worth of opinion.

Thanks, Lungyeh. As you know we talk on the side and your opinion means a lot to me. I'm trying to fix the things on the board with Vic and I've been talking to him about some of the concerns you've expressed to me. I do have respect for the mathematicians it's just that I've expressed my opinions about the interpretation of the statistical analysis in relation to wagering and I think you would agree with it. Even if it is correct the order of it is no better than flipping a coin it's all in the control and everything else I've detailed out at great length and took lots of time to put onto the board, if it's too complicated and too detailed so be it, everyone can gamble the way that they gamble and they're at the mercy of their soul and their emotional feelings that will blind their judgment the highest majority of the times, we've all been there. I feel sorry for the inexperienced ones that go in and wager their hardearned money or all their life savings on something that cannot come about the way that they've been told it will come about. Thanks again.

The defining factor that make any system suitable only to an individual to a smaller or larger extent is the human emotions.
Lungyeh,
If you mean staying disciplined then of course it's important and necessary, but discipline alone is not sufficient to win. Neither is money management. Your bet selection must have an edge otherwise you're just relying on variance ( = "luck").
The mathematics isn't difficult. In a negative expectation game like Baccarat you don't get paid fairly when you win, therefore in order to make up for this you must win more hands than probability dictates. However, this can't be done in an essentially random game like baccarat where you can't predict what's going to come out next with any reliability. You certainly can't get an edge by looking at patterns and what's just happened because all patterns are equally likely and past hands don't influence future hands. If follows from this this that there are no "opportunities" to be had. A genuine opportunity can only arise if the probabilities of an event change in your favor and represent "value" (meaning that the probability of a win overcomes the unfair payout).
Since baccarat is like a coin flip in might be easier to understand the principle in those terms. Suppose we agree to play a game of "flip the coin". We take it in turns to call and when I win you pay me $1, but when you win I only pay you 95 cents. Since the probability of either H or T is 0.5, you can surely see that eventually you are going to lose money, UNLESS you can find a way to win more often than 50% of the time (in order to overcome the unfair payout).
How much better than 50% does your probability of winning need to be? If the probability of winning is 50% then your expectation looks like this:
probability of winning * win amount  probability of losing * loss amount
which is 0.5*$0.95  0.5*$1 = $1/40 or 2.5 cents loss per game on average.
Now suppose your probability of winning is not 0.5 but "x". Your probability of losing must therefore be "(1  x)". With a little algebra you can work out what "x" must be in order to do better than break even.
x*$0.95  (1  x)*$1 > 0
$0.95*x  $1 + $1*x > 0
$1.95*x > $1
x > $1/$1.95
x > 20/39 = 0.513
So your probability of winning needs to be at least 51.3% in order to overcome the unfair payout.
Can this be achieved? Actually in coin flipping there is good evidence that the side which shows can be controlled to a certain extent by the flipping technique and the "initial conditions" (the side which is up before you flip), but for casino games it's not so easy.
Unless you can find a way to increase your winning percentage you're just gambling, in which case all I can say is : good luck!

Can we please once and for all agree that Mike is correct and that this is essentially a guessing game? Sure, it's better to play sober okay? We get that.
John didn't say this was the holy trail. He gave a starting point, a benchmark. He outlined the nemesis. Where does it go from there? Maybe this should be the discussion?
Don't like his idea? Make your own thread.

Agreed that Baccarat is a game of randomness. Amidst these randomness, there are occasions of order and patterns. It is for the Victor's of the game to win on more hands then they lose if they can identify these times when there is order and patterns.
I think for the most part, everyone who has played the game has always been ahead or winning. Its at the end of the day or sessions that count; whether the person walks out a winner or a loser. The odds of 51.3% sounds like pittance on the occasions when there is order and patterns and one happens to be there and follow the ‘shoe presentment’ (a ‘patented’ terminology of alrelax 😎). I often watch with amusement when there is a long pattern of ‘Banker’ or a long period of chopchop alternating bankerplayer and this one guy betting for randomness against the whole table. Until he was wiped out and he approached me and say he doesn't believe it. A mathematician perhaps? Told him if he follows the pattern he only loses the last bet when randomness sets in. Why stress?
Amidst randomness, there are always periods of order and patterns. Just as in life, there are periods, often, of order and peace. And periods of utter chaos. Just like a drive in the highway, there are periods of smooth driving and periods of ‘immaculate congestions’.
As in life and in other businesses, there is only a thin line between success and failure. I really do believe each one of us have to identify our own demons and control it to win at the game. Discipline is a problem for many. Winning at a certain point in a play session above the 51.3% rate is not the problem. Maintaining the wins is the problem. So whether it is money management or discipline or whatever, we need to know ourselves and find solutions for it.

Apologies if I do not sound too scientific or mathematical in my attempt to present my ideas. After more then 15 years of gambling and much losses (which I will categorise as R&D 🙄☺️ and will recoup over the next 5 years), I do think that. Human emotions. Sigh
So to identify how one can overcome their weaknesses, my suggestion is to impose ‘arbitrary ‘ rules that we ‘must’ follow. And if we cannot impose these rules on ourselves, then we should bring someone along to help impose these rules upon ourselves. For example, whatever our accumulated winnings, when we run into a change of patterns or put the other way, when randomness sets in, and we start losing our grip on the situation, the self imposed rule could be reduce bet size to half or 1/3 or 1/10 after the first loss following a series of wins. If you lose 2 out of 3 bets stop for the next 15 rounds. If you lose 3 out of 4 hands, go take a walk for an hour. If you lose back 30% of your winnings or 40%, close the session.
Winning is easy. When you start losing, the issue is how to control oneself because just a few rounds of losses can inflict damage not only on your bankroll but on your psychology as well. Most of us may claim peace or pray for peace. Peace can be easily ruffled in such situations. ‘Impose rules’

Well stated Lungyeh Yin/Yang  the power is in the balance.

Apologies if I do not sound too scientific or mathematical in my attempt to present my ideas. After more then 15 years of gambling and much losses (which I will categorise as R&D 🙄☺️ and will recoup over the next 5 years), I do think that. Human emotions. Sigh
So to identify how one can overcome their weaknesses, my suggestion is to impose ‘arbitrary ‘ rules that we ‘must’ follow. And if we cannot impose these rules on ourselves, then we should bring someone along to help impose these rules upon ourselves. For example, whatever our accumulated winnings, when we run into a change of patterns or put the other way, when randomness sets in, and we start losing our grip on the situation, the self imposed rule could be reduce bet size to half or 1/3 or 1/10 after the first loss following a series of wins. If you lose 2 out of 3 bets stop for the next 15 rounds. If you lose 3 out of 4 hands, go take a walk for an hour. If you lose back 30% of your winnings or 40%, close the session.
Winning is easy. When you start losing, the issue is how to control oneself because just a few rounds of losses can inflict damage not only on your bankroll but on your psychology as well. Most of us may claim peace or pray for peace. Peace can be easily ruffled in such situations. ‘Impose rules’
Lungyeh, you and I have seen a lot at the baccarat tables although you have more successes than me, hehe. Shout out to you, Alrelax, and all the pros and the fellow players out there!!
Baccarat is not a one size fits all game. We must possess all the skills and tutaleges of the game are as important, IMO.
Simply put, if one wins more than loses, that is called a success for me.
Cheers!!

I haven't caught up with everything posted in this thread.
Just popped in to say, ASM strategy raised my eyebrows when I read it a few days back.
Few years back, I got hit by single Banker, 4 players, which repeated 5 times, for a perfect 25 hand pattern, because I coldn't beleieve what I was seeing and started betting against it's continuance.
I've seen since a repeating single B, 4 P sequence repeat 4 times. Also a repeating single Bank, 3 Players is very common, even saw that tonight and many times in the past, ditto Player dominated shoes, were each time the P hits, it just takes off. Excuse me if I read the OP's first post wrong, I understood it as betting against the P for 2 bets, so felt compelled to respond.
Just to finish, as my eyes are burning and in need some ZZzz's It amuses me how so called experienced Baccarat players can scoff and dismiss methods of play that they don't nothing about, giving advice about what works and what won't without being informed, before they offer their solid opinion
I apply statistics and maths, call it 'expectation', that does not preclude anything freaky happening at the tables, which did occur early in 1 shoe, as the casino nearly but not quiet, produce a 256/1 shot twice in 1 bloody shoe consisting of just under 70 hands. At which stage your MM, patience, discipline & experience should kick in as you become risk adversive. I treat Baccarat like a series of binary outcomes; 1's and 0's, you can apply maths to binary. Tonight played approx 15 shoes and lost 1, which I mention above, recouped and made money from the other 14.
I will endevour to catch up with the rest of this thread at a later date when I have more time on my hands.

Personally, Lugi, I wouldn't bet against the dominant bias in the shoe. If the shoe was not consistent with my placement which means I'd be losing I would back off and try to slowly recoup some losses with conservative betting. It's not so hard to recoup from small losses. But it's going to require good guessing and proper betting techniques as well as stuff that Lung mentioned.

Personally, Lugi, I wouldn't bet against the dominant bias in the shoe. If the shoe was not consistent with my placement which means I'd be losing I would back off and try to slowly recoup some losses with conservative betting. It's not so hard to recoup from small losses. But it's going to require good guessing and proper betting techniques as well as stuff that Lung mentioned.
That wasn't the case, I noticed B PPPP repeat 4 times, so that was already a repeating 20 hand pattern. Was over taken by a rush of blood, thinking to myself, this can't possibly continue and it did for 5 more hands, meanwhile my bets got bigger, then I lost control as well as my bankroll, that was over a decade ago.
In regards to recouping small losses, I find myself and I guess others become more vulnerable the longer we have been at the tables as our self control is ebbed away.

In a negative expectation game like Baccarat you don't get paid fairly when you win, therefore in order to make up for this you must win more hands than probability dictates. However, this can't be done in an essentially random game like baccarat where you can't predict what's going to come out next with any reliability. You certainly can't get an edge by looking at patterns and what's just happened because all patterns are equally likely and past hands don't influence future hands. If follows from this this that there are no "opportunities" to be had. A genuine opportunity can only arise if the probabilities of an event change in your favor and represent "value" (meaning that the probability of a win overcomes the unfair payout).
Since baccarat is like a coin flip in might be easier to understand the principle in those terms. Suppose we agree to play a game of "flip the coin". We take it in turns to call and when I win you pay me $1, but when you win I only pay you 95 cents. Since the probability of either H or T is 0.5, you can surely see that eventually you are going to lose money, UNLESS you can find a way to win more often than 50% of the time (in order to overcome the unfair payout).
How much better than 50% does your probability of winning need to be? If the probability of winning is 50% then your expectation looks like this:
probability of winning * win amount  probability of losing * loss amount
which is 0.5*$0.95  0.5*$1 = $1/40 or 2.5 cents loss per game on average.
Now suppose your probability of winning is not 0.5 but "x". Your probability of losing must therefore be "(1  x)". With a little algebra you can work out what "x" must be in order to do better than break even.
x*$0.95  (1  x)*$1 > 0
$0.95*x  $1 + $1*x > 0
$1.95*x > $1
x > $1/$1.95
x > 20/39 = 0.513
So your probability of winning needs to be at least 51.3% in order to overcome the unfair payout.
Can this be achieved? Actually in coin flipping there is good evidence that the side which shows can be controlled to a certain extent by the flipping technique and the "initial conditions" (the side which is up before you flip), but for casino games it's not so easy.
Unless you can find a way to increase your winning percentage you're just gambling, in which case all I can say is : good luck!
That is a very simplistic way in which to view the game. I haven't witnessed anybody play the game of Baccarat flat betting, fair to assume we all are aware a negative (or positive) progression is required.
A 'smart' friend of mine gave me a bet selection (he asked me not to share) which makes mathematical sense, he tested against both Zumma data sets and it ended positive. I sometimes utilize it when playing solo and am in a position of having to bet every hand (flat betting). Doesn't seem to work when the shoes are what I would describe as rubbish, but I guess they are just those clusters bombs.
Anyhow, we should all appreciate testing is of limited value, even against a million shoes, other than to provide the player with a feel if you like, of average/expected "losses in a row" (not withstanding anything can happen in games of independent trials).
We should also be aware that if we had a large enough data set, then no matter what we test, the result is going to be "egalite", in other words "equal". I'm under no illusion that if ran my current mode of play against 2^70 (1,180,591,620,717,410,000,000 hands), the expected outcome should be 50/50. Yet that doesn't tell the whole story, if my loss strings are averaging 4LIAR, with the odd 7, then discipline, composure and a risk adverse MM approach will pull you through, if you keep your head and appreciate what is happening is a freak occurrence and you should not expect to see the same for the rest of your session.
If you want to read about a proven edge, that ain't going to happen, not now, not ever, as it simply can not exist relating to betting B or P (excludes the side bets), TT's prove this conclusively.
I will provide an outline on this public forum, shouldn't be too difficult to fathom the rest. If a binary sequence has odds of 1/256 of occurring, what are the odds of that 1/256 sequence repeating in single shoe consisting of 70 hands (approx 9 instances of 1/256). Pretty slim I would hazard a guess, yet have already run into a shoe were this happened 3 times within 70 hands, then you can play 20 shoes and never see a single repeat.
That doesn't tell the whole story. Only a novice would risk 8 bets in order to win a single bet. You need to be a bit savvy about it, there is no substitute than actually being the gaming table, experiencing the rough to smoothwall the rest. At the same time you don't want to be sitting at the table against shoes that present no bet opportunities, which my own testing has sometimes shown, or only bet once or twice for an entire shoe. Yes, I occasionally test to determine worst case scenarios, so that I can anticipate LIARS, while appreciating if I ran it through a set of binary tables, the result would be 'egalite' all things being equal. Which would be perfect in the real world, because anything that returns a 50% strike rate is ideal for a negative progression, alas it is the LIARS which are bane of all systems
People need to focus more on controlling LAIRs, if a binary sequence has an mathematical expectation of occurring once per 2048 B/P decisions (once every 29 shoes). Then what is the expectation of a 1/256 sequence repeating within 70 hands? (please don't go be a novice thinking, oh I'll just bet the opposite, your staking plan won't handle such type pf play).
Acutely aware cards are just innate pieces plastic, have no memory, if you encounter the shoe from hell (already been there done that), then how many losing bets will such an freak event cost you? Once you sort that out, then introduce more bet options, so you are not sitting on your hands for most of the game and make sure your staking plan is up to scratch, because mathematically there can never be an edge only expectation.

1) so it would seem that there will be occasions when the shoe results totally contradicts any proposed system outcomes. For example the illustrated 1 B followed by 4 P and repeated 5 times. I al a trend follower and would bet until the losing bet. Granted the random theorist or maybe a system follower recommending breaking the trend would end up losing this part of the shoe as would Asymbac I would presume. Had he played then.
2) But you see Asym’s theory may be working for him most of the other times. And if such a situation unfolded before him, he could maybe had stayed off based on his experience.
3) To each his own. Asymbac is an experienced player and I am sure his systems have a basis for long term success. Just wondering what he has to say. This exceptional situation may be the few instances he would lose had he stuck by his system but more often then not, he would prevail?
4) of course if such a strong trend were to present itself and one was to bet to break the trend, one may not look good; to put it mildly

That is a very simplistic way in which to view the game. I haven't witnessed anybody play the game of Baccarat flat betting, fair to assume we all are aware a negative (or positive) progression is required.
Yes, but this itself won't give you an edge, although it can keep you in the game long enough until you have a profit. The problem is those times when you never get a profit and end up chasing losses.

Asym,
Back on subject. As you said in context, "Notice that more likely than not, an early P 3+ streak apperance will followed by many 3+ streaks than what the opposite situation will do. Especially whether such 3+ streak is immediately followed by another identical 3+ streak. ", I would have to put that and that into my own 'identifiable events' whereasclassically strong player side presentations in the beginning, tend to continue the gravitation of producing multiple player repeats (whatever the number is) as compared to Banker winning repeats. In the beginning of the shoe is much more prevalent and noticeable to myselfand certainly has raised my eyebrows for quite some time.
I hope I expressed myself correctly.

Too many cats get way too caught up in the very short term but most recreational player. Over time though, the expectation plays out and that's why the antistreak is such a solid style of play, hey hey.

Thanks for the huge interest on this humble post.
Believe me, the stupi.d strategy presented here (and more are coming) will get the best of it itlr with 1 million accuracy.
Say you put in action a player betting toward P 1s and 2s in any order toward getting at least a two pattern sequence and such player is eager to get a profit no matter what, so progressively increasing the bet forever and ever.
Like a 12, 48, 1632, 64128, 256512 betting plan....
To lose (that is to not cross at least a favorite situation in 5 consecutive attempts) we need to test a lot of shoes.
Sooner or later such unfavourable and very unlikely situation will happen, destroying our previous profits.
Good.
But remember that per every class of 3:1 single losing situation, a more likely proportional winning situation will happen along the way.
We are acting with probabilities on our side, despite what mathematics dictates.
Actually, the number of two P 1s2s clusters will overcome the number of opposite situations.
Utilizing a more sensibile approach set up in order to reduce variance, say that the number of 12 P clusters will overcome the number of P superior classes. It's a sure long term finding.
In a word, we are betting that P 3+ streaks are more likely to come out quite dispersed or at least with a pace different from 1 to the rest (where the rest is every possible situation, that is any combination of 1s and 2s superior than one).
Notice that consecutive 3+ P patterns aren't going to produce us any harm as we are not starting any betting.
Generally speaking, we do not want to bet toward what it didn't happen so far, as 2 level must come out after a 1 and not after a zero.
The more the actual shoe tend to produce zero o 1 situations, higher will be the propensity to not bet a single dime.
Remember that surely the more likely happens in clusters, but at the same time sh.it happens in clusters and a single shoe is just a minuscule part of the whole picture.
as.

Looks good Assym. One reason, as you point out, is the common occurrences of 1's and 2's  representing 50% of decisions. By my way of thinking it is good to have a benchmark, a starting plan. That way there is structure, something that can be explained. You recognize there needs to be adjustments, fictional bets, MM, whatever.
Nope, P 1s and 2s represent more than 75% of total decisions.
In a perfect simmetrical model, 1s and 2s on each side are 75% of the total outcomes.
as.

The Gambler Who Cracked the HorseRacing Codehttps://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/20180503/thegamblerwhocrackedthehorseracingcode
The mathematicians on this beloved forum of ours maybe right after all. If horse racing can be reduced to algorithms, Baccarat must be a breeze. US$100,000,000 a year.
Always always give space to those who talk about things we don't know

You are absolutely correct.
Do it, show it, write about it and tell it all.
Or, keep it to yourself, grow old and let nobody know.

Lungyeh,
If you mean staying disciplined then of course it's important and necessary, but discipline alone is not sufficient to win. Neither is money management. Your bet selection must have an edge otherwise you're just relying on variance ( = "luck").
The mathematics isn't difficult. In a negative expectation game like Baccarat you don't get paid fairly when you win, therefore in order to make up for this you must win more hands than probability dictates. However, this can't be done in an essentially random game like baccarat where you can't predict what's going to come out next with any reliability. You certainly can't get an edge by looking at patterns and what's just happened because all patterns are equally likely and past hands don't influence future hands. If follows from this this that there are no "opportunities" to be had. A genuine opportunity can only arise if the probabilities of an event change in your favor and represent "value" (meaning that the probability of a win overcomes the unfair payout).
Since baccarat is like a coin flip in might be easier to understand the principle in those terms. Suppose we agree to play a game of "flip the coin". We take it in turns to call and when I win you pay me $1, but when you win I only pay you 95 cents. Since the probability of either H or T is 0.5, you can surely see that eventually you are going to lose money, UNLESS you can find a way to win more often than 50% of the time (in order to overcome the unfair payout).
How much better than 50% does your probability of winning need to be? If the probability of winning is 50% then your expectation looks like this:
probability of winning * win amount  probability of losing * loss amount
which is 0.5*$0.95  0.5*$1 = $1/40 or 2.5 cents loss per game on average.
Now suppose your probability of winning is not 0.5 but "x". Your probability of losing must therefore be "(1  x)". With a little algebra you can work out what "x" must be in order to do better than break even.
x*$0.95  (1  x)*$1 > 0
$0.95*x  $1 + $1*x > 0
$1.95*x > $1
x > $1/$1.95
x > 20/39 = 0.513
So your probability of winning needs to be at least 51.3% in order to overcome the unfair payout.
Can this be achieved? Actually in coin flipping there is good evidence that the side which shows can be controlled to a certain extent by the flipping technique and the "initial conditions" (the side which is up before you flip), but for casino games it's not so easy.
Unless you can find a way to increase your winning percentage you're just gambling, in which case all I can say is : good luck!
You are correct but only 50%, so why not be 100% smart rather than halfsmart?!
What I mean is that you know well what's the HE, you can even present it with mathematical formulas to us and we're greatfull since nobody was aware of it! :applause:
What you seem to neglect due to ignorance or purpose, it doesn't really matter, is that HE is not the only force at work during the results' distribution process, randomness means deviations and deviations eclipse HE, period.
But in case you still don't get it I'm going to break it down in quarters for you;
Let's assume for the example's sake that after 1,000 outcomes player A bets constantly option 1 and player B bets constantly option 2, player A won 563 times and lost 437, meanwhile, player B won 413 times and lost 587.
Player A won 126 times more, hence the net profit cause of the deviation.
While player B lost 174 times more, thus the loss cause of the DEVIATION and NOT the HE.
Speaking about HE, the casino took the loss of 174 from player B and paid 126 to player A, the remaining casino profit was subject to ongoing expenses and taxation for running the business.
The aftermath is that if something could lose then something else could win, you cannot have one without the other, period.
HE is a reality, but one which DOES NOT prevent someone to be long term winner.
Besides, the HE is based on the expectation of that every event has, at some point, get near its probability.
I dare to make a step further and declare that if the whole HE theory is being established on the law of large numbers, then we can safely assume that along the course of a significant total of outcomes, their probability will be confirmed.
So what does this means?
It simply means that if the casino can be sure for their profit because they are paying less, this lesser profit has to be so much less in comparison with the frequency of wins in order to have a significant impact on the money wagered.
But money wagered and/or paid don't generate decisions/results, but decisions/selections can make money!
If we would expand our event's horizon from 1 session to many sessions as a whole, then we could follow the certainty of the law of large numbers.
Casinos EXPECT this mathematical theory to be confirmed sooner or later, otherwise the lesser payouts, what they call HE, would be rendered obsolete!
In the knowledge of that as a de facto expectation we could establish such Money Management which would overcome the HE when eventually the law of large numbers will be confirmed.
What kills the BankRolls are NOT the HE, but the variance and the shortsighted approaches which account for 99.99% of all cases.
HE could be considered just as taxation on profits, at the end we are paying for our own mistakes rather than something which is beyond everyone's grasp!
The sophisticated money management should be scaled 1 to 1,000 bets/outcomes, it will not attempt to predict in the short term, but to capitalize on the long term!

Were you addressing your article to me? I was just posting a Bloomberg article about a small group of guys using mathematics to make @1 billion in betting on hirse racing. And I went on to suggest if mathematics can be used to make money on the 4legged hoofed animal, using mathematical formulations to win on Baccarat should not be beyond imagination.
Having said befor that mathematicians are at the top of the intelligence food chain the article seems to reinforce the perception that there is a mathematical way to prevail at baccarat and perhaps the one school of thought should give more credence to the mathematical way. Except that the pro mathematics school in this forum seems to argue vaguely on HE and the whys and wherefores.

Were you addressing your article to me? I was just posting a Bloomberg article about a small group of guys using mathematics to make @1 billion in betting on hirse racing. And I went on to suggest if mathematics can be used to make money on the 4legged hoofed animal, using mathematical formulations to win on Baccarat should not be beyond imagination.
Having said befor that mathematicians are at the top of the intelligence food chain the article seems to reinforce the perception that there is a mathematical way to prevail at baccarat and perhaps the one school of thought should give more credence to the mathematical way. Except that the pro mathematics school in this forum seems to argue vaguely on HE and the whys and wherefores.
You are 1,000 % correct! Math, engineers, scientists, grest doctors and attorneys that actually devote their lives and to research and application of their professions are usually thankless and underpaid choosen fields for the ones that bring about needed changes and advancements that help mankind!
However, with definitely applying mathematical and models to a game such as baccarat, the casino will always win as our bankrolls will never ever ever ever ever, never ever outlast our own greedy and desirous minds!!! Every once and awhile a Don Johnson comes along and does what he did at The Tropicana in Atlantic City a few years ago, and that $15,000.000.00 loss to The Trop probably made their bottom line profits hundreds of times that very same amount from thousands of attempts to replicate that!!! There was a relatively a new owner of the casino when that happened and the limits at the tables were an unprecedented $50,000.00 A HAND FOR WALK IN NO FRONT MONEY PLAYERS!!! Even higher than anywhere in Las Vegas whuch us $25,000.00 a hand at only a few places. If you look it up about the Tropicana at that time a few years back there are interviews with the owner and he made a superb and phenomenal sense in what he said how he allowed that to happen and the revenue and the exposure with advertising and marketing it has brought his Casino. So who was actually the winner, was it the Tropicana or was it Don Johnson and the baccarat public?? End of story on that one, because I see no t one downside to the casino, even though they lost 15 million dollars they won thousands of millions of dollars from players exactly like that as I mentioned and they're wild thoughts that they can replicate that easily with 50,000 a hundred thousand or even a few hundred thousand dollar bank roll. I know several of the hosts that are at that casino that went there just before that happened from when Bally's Grand closed down next door in Atlantic City and they laugh everyday about that situation and tons of players that have repeatedly and consecutively tried..
Anyway you get my drift. However stories like that which are actual events such as the horse racing story you just mentioned in international news gives such Fuel and Fire to people that want to argue and cause drama, such as those on this message board as well as every other message board, that all of their mathematical and statistical discoveries and rehashing of plain and simple mathematics and statistical facts, backup and support every single thing that they've ever stated on these message boards. Which is true, however it cannot for 99.99 percentplus of everybody that goes to the baccarat table. Me and you and everyone else will lose their money in the attempt to make a greater amount of money that we will never ever be able to do. And then you have the people that want to poke fun, twist turn and be a message board hero, for their classroom applications which are 100% true and there is your catch 22.
So when I go to the casino now in the last 15 plus years and I start to hit it I smack it and pounce on it, the way that I've described and we have done extremely well and when I lose I lose very small amounts unlike what my close friend HMoney has the past month or so did, I'll lose $500 to $1,500 continuously but when we win we win $5,000 to $40,000 plus, very often and as I've stated with money management and everything else that I've described in great detail and great time with here. It is also and I stress also, 1000% true and my wins are far far greater than what my small losses are because I do not do what HMoney did and likewise 99.99 percent of everyone else does at the baccarat tables. Just say for whatever reason I've discovered what I did and it definitely works. And I don't care if the bottom line is I sprinkled magical dust on them cards and peaked and peeled at them. and I got lucky, it does not matter not one bit because a win is a win and it doesn't matter if Voodoo or a dream or luck or whatever it is one bit, that the game that night, I still cashed out what I did with them pictures and we still had a blast and like I said the bottom line is, it out does the small amount of losses if you can hold and maintain your emotional and psychological state of mind and realize what it takes to win the game. And what it takes to win this game is exactly the way that I've outlined it, showed pictures and described. That doesn't mean that I'm any smarter than or any better than that of the mathematical or statistical teachers and professors and extremely intelligent people that recite all the mathematical and statistical facts, but they are only correct in the long run and in the classroom, it doesn't apply to the casino. At least for the player with any kind of obtainable and realistic bankroll in order to apply it to do what Don Johnson did and other phenomenal and lucky gamblers have done. Some people get that lucky break and get to apply their bankroll and they're prevailing the same way that certain actors have in the movie Industries and became internationally famous and apply their talents that millions of other people have just as well, that just could not find the proper opportunity or other people to nurture them and get them into the spotlight in order to be a success such as Bruce Willis, Clint Eastwood, Al Pacino Robert De Niro Woody Harrelson and many many others actors have successfully accomplished. A Perfect Analogy.
Just like what we did the other night and I've posted a few pictures which are extremely hard to take and only acceptable at a few casinos when they really know the players and you don't abuse the privilege of snapping a picture that they see of the table without faces in it especially the employees. And if I continue to sit there and do what I did the people that caused the drama on these message boards would be exactly right, however I do not do that any longer. I take the money and I do the most important thing that I've ever discovered and I've tried to let everyone know and it's simply called, resetting and refreshing. End of story once again. And that is the way you can profit extremely well at baccarat. Thank you, goodnight.

Were you addressing your article to me? I was just posting a Bloomberg article about a small group of guys using mathematics to make @1 billion in betting on hirse racing. And I went on to suggest if mathematics can be used to make money on the 4legged hoofed animal, using mathematical formulations to win on Baccarat should not be beyond imagination.
Having said befor that mathematicians are at the top of the intelligence food chain the article seems to reinforce the perception that there is a mathematical way to prevail at baccarat and perhaps the one school of thought should give more credence to the mathematical way. Except that the pro mathematics school in this forum seems to argue vaguely on HE and the whys and wherefores.
I've quoted Mike's post, not yours.
By the way, I'm not interested in 4 legs gamble because there are more parameters out of the punter's reach, beyond the gambler's control rather than Baccarat.
From my perspective, Baccarat cannot become any simpler, it's the simplest of all gambling forms and simple is good for application of theories.

The defining factor that make any system suitable only to an individual to a smaller or larger extent is the human emotions. Perhaps the mathematicians can formulate all human emotions but for sure even given a certain exact trend then prevailing, humans may react differently because the players at the table are different, the dealer is different, the player just quarrelled with the wife, the player just had a fantastic 50 shades of grey BDSM sex etc etc.
My 2 cents worth of opinion.
Bump. Accurate. Great thoughts deduced down for the baccarat player whom seldom even takes time to think. Etc., etc.

No need to think.
Average distributions will take care of it.
People who make a living at baccarat want to wager very few hands.
as.

I have witnessed numerous people win hundreds of thousands of dollars in short periods of sections like 8 to 15 hands and I've seen those same people almost every one of them give it back over 1 to 4 shoes, because they couldn't repeat what they just did.
I've seen it way too much!

I have witnessed numerous people win hundreds of thousands of dollars in short periods of sections like 8 to 15 hands and I've seen those same people almost every one of them give it back over 1 to 4 shoes, because they couldn't repeat what they just did.
I've seen it way too much!
Exactly.
You have to win very few to stay alive at this game, imo.
That's why casinos entice players to wager every hand.
as.

When I was younger especially in Atlantic City and up in Connecticut had no idea what the casino hosts were doing in actuality. But they got that 4 hour minimum with those average bets for the room food beverage and incidentals for the higher line players and there's a reason why they do that!!
But there's a lot more than that, they do. Of course we know all that now many years later but what they do is very good and they're very good at how they keep players there.

When I was younger especially in Atlantic City and up in Connecticut had no idea what the casino hosts were doing in actuality. But they got that 4 hour minimum with those average bets for the room food beverage and incidentals for the higher line players and there's a reason why they do that!!
But there's a lot more than that, they do. Of course we know all that now many years later but what they do is very good and they're very good at how they keep players there.
Yeah!
You kept stressing about the importance to play wisely and actually and without any doubt this site is the only one to provide meaningful insights about how to reduce the house edge, to say the least.
as.

Yeah!
You kept stressing about the importance to play wisely and actually and without any doubt this site is the only one to provide meaningful insights about how to reduce the house edge, to say the least.
as.
Touching..................seriously.
You know when I win at bac and win something good, repeatedly running through my head is the song by Creedence Clearwater Revival, "Run Through The Jungle"......................
Only 6 sentences with the same 3 line chorus in the whole song.
Simple, that is it. Listen to it. When I win a few F7's, P8's a 3 card 8/9 and some nice Bankers or Players, all in a short section, that darn song is clearly in my head, almost word for word!!!!!

Grab it and run to the cashier's cage is the bottom line.
The rest fits right in, pretty much.
Don't go walkin slow....
Better run through the 'casino'....
I heard a rumblin, callin to my name.......
Let the people know my wisedom......(to cash out, lol)

Yeah!
You kept stressing about the importance to play wisely and actually and without any doubt this site is the only one to provide meaningful insights about how to reduce the house edge, to say the least.
as.
Thanks, As
I have attempted to keep the this site geared towards productively discussing wagering, the games, casinos and in general gambling. I would like to remain neutral and positive and leave the negativity and the demeaning, chastising and humiliation type of statement out of it all. The continual one liners with drama driven motives to upset and harass anyone on the board. We don;t need it, let them gather at the other more consumerish website and fight, argue and demean each other, like WoV, VMB, GF, etc., etc.
Sometimes it is not the sheer number of members or viewers that add the legitimacy or the real valuable info and data. Same as in other businesses as well.
I do have plans and we are working on them. Interactive games for practice, discussion, competition, etc. Some type of live gaming. Some type of news desk such as the old Johnny Carson or David Letterman style shows. Monologue, interviews, discussion, entertainment of some type and a closing segment. A few other things. Just more interaction and involvement, rather than post, wait and type, defend and eventually the thread dies off.

I'm a strict objective statistical results lover but our bac earnings had gotten a huge increase by additionally adopting the suggestions you have posted here.
And I'm talking very seriously.
It's about 6 months I've chosen to mentor a couple of very high stakes players and so far we haven't experienced one single losing session.
To the point that in one occasion floormen stand behind us to ascertain we were not applying an edge sorting strategy.
LOL.
as.

our bac earnings had gotten a huge increase by additionally adopting the suggestions you have posted here.
And I'm talking very seriously.
as.
Define??? Explain?? thanks, Glen.

Ok Glen.
First our plan is to assess how much an average shoe will conform to the actual shoe.
Such players are betting $5.000 or more per hand, thus they won't to be fooled.
Secondly but more importantly, is how the actual bets are conforming to a general flow of the game.
Now everything comes out in handy such as the general propensity to get good starting points at a given side, predominance of one side, cutoff points.
Moreover, we are carefully noticing what other players' results are. For example, univocal good or bad results are coming whether the shoe is not prodcuing simple patterns as long streaks or long univocal easily detectable patterns.
To simplify, display results are just one side of the issue. Cumulative players outcomes are another part of it.
Naturally very rarely display results are just correspondent to the sum of every single player distinct results as it's quite difficult to get "humanly" easily and long detectable patterns.
If poker is a game of imperfect informations, bac will be a lot more on that issue, but yet one side must win no matter what. Not forgetting that balancement is just a virtual accomplishment to get.
Example,
Say we think that next hand will be B and most players are betting B.
Now I want to assess if majority of side players are winners or losers.
Say most part of players are losers or heavy losers. I won't bet B, I won't bet anything.
I could be right or wrong but the overall probability is slightly oriented to get a loss.
Now say that the previous hand was a loss, we have no indications on which side to wager and most players bet one side. What to do?
Even if we could be trapped in the middle of a losing streak, I would follow the majority of players. Thet is players who had lost the previous hand so probability to get a winning hand for them is slightly endorsed.
I mean that it's quite difficult to find spots where every player at the table is wrong or right, besides very rare situations when the shoe is very polarized.
Imo, our task should be to spot the situations where 0 goes to 1 or viceversa or at most where 1 goes to 2 or 2 to 1. The rest is pure randomness.
What do you think?
as.

Yes, what i have written about lately called, getting sucked in,
I will comment tomorrow, but yes right track about perception, etc.

Asym,
Yes, and I am not attempting to take anything away. IMO, this is reality to a certain point. I have written about it in several other threads, similar, a bit different, more detailed, etc., etc.
Everything all over the internet is so theorized, so "bookish", so system/mechanical holy grail oriented, it make me laugh and puke at the same time.
The casino game, especially baccarat, is so player driven for its results, wins, losses, and everything in between, at times it has nothing to really do with the shoe presentments as far as wagering goes.
Please read the following and comment, positively, negatively or otherwise.
https://betselection.cc/generaldiscussion/fooledbyrealityfooledbydesires/
About the forums and the transformation, interpretation and believability of the info written and presented, etc.:
https://betselection.cc/generaldiscussion/'thereisnotruththereisonlyperception'ontheforums/
Relevance of info, test results, false positives, etc.:
https://betselection.cc/generaldiscussion/relevanceversusperceptionversusreality/
My thoughts on getting sucked in and screwing yourself as most all players do, experienced or not:
https://betselection.cc/baccaratforum/seriouslybaccaratbetselectionletstalkdiscussplayersandwagering/
Dealing with the how comes and the whys, etc.:
https://betselection.cc/baccaratforum/theoreticalvspracticalrealityknowledgeingamblingbaccarat/
'Probability', 'Variances' and most importantly, 'Dealing with our Ignorance':
https://betselection.cc/generaldiscussion/fooledbyrealityfooledbydesires/msg64030/#msg64030
Asym,
You might have read those??? But it fits in with my many years of playing B&M at all levels and all types, as well as the rage of the internet and the chase for the holy grail, that does not exist, never did and never well, at least in mechanical systematic form, etc.
Thanks, Glen.

Everything you've posted makes much sense to me.
But we know that only real live sessions are the proof of what we are talking about.
Anybody wanting to win money could PM me. We'll meet us in Vegas.
Anything for free.
as.

AsumBacGuy I want to say thank you for a nice topic.
Wondering if you could give a concrete example of the staking plan.
There are so many variations!
Cheers

AsumBacGuy I want to say thank you for a nice topic.
Wondering if you could give a concrete example of the staking plan.
There are so many variations!
Cheers
Thank you.
What do you mean as "staking plan".
Thanks.
as.

Let me put it like this, how would you wagering your money ...
For example multiple levels:
1 2
1 3
2 4
2 6
3 6
3 9
4 8
4 12
5 10
5 15
7 14
7 21
9 18
9 27
12 24
12 36
15 30
15 45
Soxfan always talks about big bankroll and all in ...

Ok, thanks for the explanation.
Actually I'm playing a very conservative strategy: 80% of the time 1 unit, in the remaining 20% bets are raised from 50% to 100% (maximum is always 2 bets).
More rarely I employ aggressive strategies when I want to bet very few spots where the supposedly probability to win a series of progressive wagers is very close to 100%.
I do not apply anymore long strategic plans as sooner or later they'll easily sink into the variance ocean.
What about you?
as.

IMO and experience, unlike any system module and program on a computer that will eventually win with unlimited bankroll, the real casino is not the same. Coupled with the unforgiving and clouding real players inflict upon themselves in the wagering process when they lose. Likewise, when they win, those same players ignore or forget upon what will eventually happen.
I have posted details about positive progressions of 1326 units, as well as a few other things, I believe one can call staking?? Staking to me, is the amount of my future bets dependent upon if I win or lose my current wager.
A couple parlays at most and than pull down the winnings. Always attempting to recoup as quick as possible my initial wager, no matter if i am winning or losing. I do my best when I am gambling with the casinos money. I have argued back and forth with many over the years about that very statement. But there is always a risk for the player, no matter if you started out and lost/losing your wagers or winning. As far as the grind with looking for 2 or 3 or 4 units, each day, that will always fail.
You have to totally understand and control human nature. It is no different in most all aspects of life, hobbies, business, etc. Gambling is the same, but so many have no clue as to how human nature does and will effect your decisions.

Hello AS ... I have some question and I hope you can help me solve them.
You wrote in the beginning:
We'll bet a 12 unit progression whenever a P single or a P double had come out, in order to get at least a two P 12 clustered succession in any order. After winning the first (single) or second (double) event, we stop the betting waiting for another 1 or 2 P situation and going over and over. Meaning we have to wait a 3+ appearance cutting the pattern.
And in the reply above you say that you are conservative and flat betting.
Question 1: Assume I want to stick to the original idea of playing 12 progression, then what happens after two losses, in some way I need to use a smooth progression without implementing Marty 100% I mean I can not start flat betting after using 12 progression, there has to be another way wagering the money?
Question 2: You say you use a conservative method flat betting. Do this mean you win and break even with WIN and LOSS WIN patterns W/LW and only raise the money when you encounter negative variance?
Cheers

Hi Sputnik!
I'll answer tomorrow extensively to your interesting questions.
Cheers
as.

Sputnik ,
Check out the JP Baccarat 122.
Dr. Mabuse
Tsi Nan Fu

Let's go back with my idea on baccarat.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
as.

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.

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.

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.

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 1415 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 34 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 34 or more 5hand 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.

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.

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!

We could even extend from 6 to 10 streak, betting against 11 streak to occur BEFORE any streak of 6,7,8,9 and 10 would happen.
As long as 1 up to 5 streaks occur we keep betting against the same side, when the first streak of 6,7,8,9 or 10 occurs quit or change sides.

Well 75% strike ratio give you two wins W W and one breakeven LW and two loses LL
When the 3 in 4 ratio chop you get at least two wins in a row in most situations to allow you to use a very smooth staking plan.
I am testing this using a variant of the Starprogression, Carsh variant.
Cheers

Hi Sputnik, I believe 6 steps are sufficient, but if someone would like to extended it up to 10 steps that's perfectly fine with me.
However, I would never consider anything more than 10, on the end is NOT ONLY if it busts but how much profit has been gained overall.
Please share whatever you find, thanks.
Appologise from Asym for highjacking his thread! :D

I am up net 60 units this year, flat betting. I had similar results last year as well.
Was up net 74 units until yesterday, when two virtual machines beat me. Lesson learned.
I buy in for ten units, and use a twenty unit bankroll.
Progressions, and systems such and Lebouchere and Oscars Grind, D alembert, and others, will destroy you. They add nothing to overall wins, and increase risk of ruin and variance exponentially.
That is why casinos love system players.
Unlike Blackjack, there is never any mathematical reason to justify using a progression in Baccarat.

I am up net 60 units this year, flat betting. I had similar results last year as well.
Was up net 74 units until yesterday, when two virtual machines beat me. Lesson learned.
I buy in for ten units, and use a twenty unit bankroll.
Progressions, and systems such and Lebouchere and Oscars Grind, D alembert, and others, will destroy you. They add nothing to overall wins, and increase risk of ruin and variance exponentially.
That is why casinos love system players.
Unlike Blackjack, there is never any mathematical reason to justify using a progression in Baccarat.
You just post words that add nothing to the subject, AsymBacGuy shows a very nice way to tackle even money bets and you just go on with nonsense.
I don't want to offend you, but I saw so many wannabes posting there success flat betting, but never have i seen anyone of those posting how they flat betting.
Hope you get the picture.
Next time you might want to add something with substance to the discussion.

Yeah, I got the picture.
You want me to tell you how I do it.
I analyzed nearly onehundred different flat bet variations over more than 1,000 shoes, before I settled on the one I currently use.
After all that work, why would I tell anyone how I play?
I posted my numbers to show flat betting can win units, and discourage people from wasting their bankrolls progression betting. My previous posts show FTP, and Banker Only can be effective flat bet strategies.
I did add something to the discussion, but you were not listening.
“Stay away from progressions and cancellation systems.”
Millions of players have been using them for the past 100 years. If even one of them worked, the game would no longer exist.
Wannabes are the ones who waste their time and bust their bankrolls over and over on that nonsense.
There is never a mathematical reason to use a progression in Baccarat.
Even if a side is mathematically favored to win the next hand, it is only favored by a small fraction of a percentage. That is no justification for increasing a bet by 100% or more.

There is no need to tell anything, you are just like all the others.
Hello, my name is and I can flat betting and win more then I lose, nonsense.
You can not outguess 50/50 that is just ridiculous.
But I will not offend you and say that you are lying, I will just say that we can agree on that we disagree with each other.
Cheers

Yeah, I got the picture.
You want me to tell you how I do it.
I analyzed nearly onehundred different flat bet variations over more than 1,000 shoes, before I settled on the one I currently use.
After all that work, why would I tell anyone how I play?
I posted my numbers to show flat betting can win units, and discourage people from wasting their bankrolls progression betting. My previous posts show FTP, and Banker Only can be effective flat bet strategies.
I did add something to the discussion, but you were not listening.
�Stay away from progressions and cancellation systems.�
Millions of players have been using them for the past 100 years. If even one of them worked, the game would no longer exist.
Wannabes are the ones who waste their time and bust their bankrolls over and over on that nonsense.
There is never a mathematical reason to use a progression in Baccarat.
Not quite true. Using progressions will ultimately have the exact same winning as flat betting the average bet size (ABS) of the progression utilized. So if one can win flat betting one will also win with progressions. Of course one must consider available bankroll, table limits and variance. The advantage of progressions vs. flat betting is to win greater % of shoes.
*************************
60 units in 10 months? That's not a lot but still a win is a win. I'm not knocking it. It would be helpful if you were to state how many bets per shoe and units won per shoe on average. Stuff like that. Surely that wouldn't be giving anything away.

Not quite true. Using progressions will ultimately have the exact same winning as flat betting the average bet size (ABS) of the progression utilized. So if one can win flat betting one will also win with progressions. Of course one must consider available bankroll, table limits and variance. The advantage of progressions vs. flat betting is to win greater % of shoes.
*************************
60 units in 10 months? That's not a lot but still a win is a win. I'm not knocking it. It would be helpful if you were to state how many bets per shoe and units won per shoe on average. Stuff like that. Surely that wouldn't be giving anything away.
Your reply IS ALL THE MONEY!!! :thumbsup:

Nice replies on my humble board, thanks!
For one time I'd take the opposite direction, say we want to join a table with the purpose of losing the entire money we get at the table.
What's the speedest way to lose, say a $1000 bankroll at a $10$1000 limit table?
Is by betting the whole $1k in just on hand? No way. Actually this is the best move we can make to win, no matter the side we'll choose to wager on.
Same about splitting our one thousand in two parts, hoping to lose two more hands than we win. It's a difficult task, but we know that sooner or later will happen, especially by the HE disadvantage.
Splitting our bankroll in more portions (3, 4 or 10) won't do the job that easy, we need to lose more hands in the process.
Of course the slowest procedure we could think of about losing our $1000 is by flat betting $10, it will take a lot of time to win such "losing reward".
Idea!
We'll bet an important part of our bankroll hoping to lose, then raising the rest part of it hoping to lose again. After all, two losses in a row comes out quite frequently along the way.
Mmmhhhhh, if we bet $300 then $700 when losing the first wager we are increasing the overall probability to be temporarily ahead of $400 and the process repeats.
Mathematically and no matter how we'll split the money wagered, the more we'll proportionally bet after a loss the higher will be the probabilities to win.
Providing finite spots.
I mean that an infinite process of raising the bets from one part increases the probability to win and on the other hand raises the risk of ruin up to the point where either betting limits or our bankroll cannot sustain the action.
We may come up to the wrong conclusion that the best way to lose is the best way to win, that is to bet a lot at the start or an important part of the bankroll, then promptly hoping to get more immediate losses (or wins).
Anything different from that will just dilute the entire process and as we well know time goes in casinos' favor.
Therefore, the more we play (hands), the more we are entitled to lose and the more we raise the wagers the more are the probabilities to lose.
I mean that the more aggressive we are playing at the start and higher will be the probability to win but itlr such procedure will surely fail; on the other hand light progressions may work just on very diluted and well calibrated spots where the probability to win (or lose) is quite restricted and whether properly assessed will sum up.
Imo, we shouldn't want to guess every single hand but just aiming to get a positive outcome on a couple (or 3) of hands serially considered.
as.

The most probable way to lose all your money on Baccarat is by going all in on every hand, eventually there will come 1 hand to smack your cheek!

The most probable way to lose all your money on Baccarat is by going all in on every hand, eventually there will come 1 hand to smack your cheek!
Exactly, unless we go allin with the maximum bet right at the start. That's why in my example I put the bankroll at $1000 with a $1000 maximum limit.
Imo this is an important concept derived from mentoring people who like to bet not less than half the maximum limit.
If we know to have at our disposal just two (50% or 100%) or three (75%) betting amounts, we'll have a clearer picture of what is going on with our selection.
Only 100% bets cannot be recovered mathematically as the vig will wipe out everything itlr, even though a good selection may hopefully invert the HE.
as.

I do personally side with and like what Asym says, although it can be confusing and easily misinterpreted, IMO.
But, to go in and go extremely heavy is a favorite of mine. It depends on many factors, too many for me to discuss here and now, as to the reason why I did go in heavy.
However, my 'heavies' are usually with all win money or chips I put aside that already produced me an equal amount or nearly an equal amount and I see something unusually favorable to my style and liking.
Then I have no problem to go heavy. Meaning, maybe I started the session with $1,200.00. Won, $1,000.00 already. If something grab me, I would have to problem to throw in $750.00 to $1,500.00 on it.
Or, I played for some time and it was fizzling out, or everyone left or I was just plain tired. I still have no problem to risk everything I won on one wager or perhaps I did not win, just throw it in and wager for a double or nothing type of situation.

Thanks Al.
Actually I probably posted too many concepts. ^^
Anyway, it's widely known that casinos fear heavy bettors capable to win fast and quitting the table and not common mortals wishing to be right for a long time.
Imo we do not need to join a $5000 maximum table with the purpose to bet at least $2500.
We could easily set up our minimummaximum betting standards from 1 to 2 and strictly adhering to this plan.
In a kind of taxed coin flip game we can't hope to be right after two levels of betting.
as.

It is the end of the day, 2 of the coldest days of the year, today and yesterday, but going back up tomorrow morning into the high 40's anyway.
Not much sleep last night. Trying to close up to go home and watch some movies and cook. But thinking about this for a few minuets, again without great detail, etc., I have won huge amounts of money in a shorter time or a smaller section of play, then extending and attempting to continue each one of those for those that I did extend.
I hope that made sense. Yes, I have gave lots of it back in my first say 1520 years of play, at least lots more than I do now or have done for quite some time.
Not that it is always easier to win real quick, at least enough to walk away and all that, but not matter what many say, I find it is easier to win in a much smaller play section, no matter what that section is, than it is to win and prevail with something sizable playing numerous shoes or all night, etc.
However, the catch 22 sort of saying is, if you don't play or stop playing, you can not win. (Win more? Lose less?) That is what is truly confusing, at least to the real players I have to add.

Forget the real outcomes, this is just a losers topic.
Instead consider this new way of playing the game adopting those words: chopping and streaking.
No news huh?
Ok.
Go on.
Chopping= hands that form short or no streaks on either side.
Even though it could appear as a weird assumption, this is the main feature of baccarat.
Now what's short?
Surely singles, surely doubles. Maybe triples. Stop!
If you have been reading my posts, you know that the average number of 3+ streaks happening on a single shoe is around 9.
Thus everybody here knows (not there) that the average number of 4+ streaks is around 4.5.
Streaking=hands that tend to form 3+ streaks.
Every fkn single shoe in the universe will present a given amount of chopping situations and a given amount of streaking situations.
Well, a whole streaking shoe won't be produced by any means except if one or more streaks are so long that chopping won't have any room to appear.
Conversely, if you have your last bucks to spend I reckon you'll wait some favourable situations to bet on chopping patterns as they surely as hell will happen along the way.
Curiously, chopping and streaking will appear at various degrees per every shoe dealt.
The probability of average chopping/streaking occurence knowing what happened so far in the shoe was deeply studied by your "hero" :)
Actually an english team discovered this bac flaw several years ago. They have destroyed and are continuing to destroy many casinos. What's their strenght?
They know the shoes to attack and which shoes to let it go.
Ironically they made most money at Ritz casino in London and everybody knows the Phil Ivey story. PI wasn't payed, they did.
So rule #1.
Not every shoe is beatable by a high degree of confidence. And they need it.
Then rule #2.
A progression is worth if applied on multiple same situations coming out on different shoes and whether such betting spots are considered worth of betting. It's just an accelerator.
Rule #3
Progressions can only work if multilayered conceived and never by a linear progression.
Ranges.
Trying to guess right every hand or most hands dealt is a silly losing operation. We simply can't.
Better to play a winning range where we need just one hand to be ahead.
Say we want to get any streak in a given spot. And say we want to apply a 124 progression.
To lose we must cross a 3 singles apparition. It could happen but by a careful assessment of what happened so far the probability may be easily lowered to 11% or so. And the average apparition is 12.5%.
The same, even better, if we want to discount the spots where a 4+ streak will happen.
Again, we just need a 14% or so probability to win.
Baccarat is beatable right on the same field the house will rely upon: tiny edges infinitely working.
I'll come back soon on more topics.
as.

I agree what you say above. I'll look forward to next post. Just a footnote now. Yes I guess BUT I "key" off the chops. The chops tend to crowd out the streaks as you say. I use the 1's only. If they have been average by the quarter shoe I don't expect much long streaks  until the second half when card composition often changes due to certain denomination depletion.

I use the 1's only. If they have been average by the quarter shoe I don't expect much long streaks  until the second half when card composition often changes due to certain denomination depletion.
That's interesting.
Do you want to say something more on that?
as.

Asym,
It all boils down to, how many times the 'event' (whatever it might be) happens and the players catches it, sees it, or capitalizes on it.
Many will attempt to turn all that around and convert it all into math, stats, patterns and trends, etc. Which cannot be accurately done.
Non of them will consistently reoccur within any set parameters, no matter how a person tries to run the theory.
Better understanding of that and the game is experience. The problem for most is the lack of funds to their continual depleting of what they believe is the ideal bank roll or buyin, etc.
Personally I can make huge amounts of profit on a 7 or 10 or 14 chopchop streak or a 12 repeating P or B streak in a row, as well 8 times (16 hands) doubles or anyone of countless other events. The problem lies in between those events and profitable times as to each of our 'cooling off' periods and how we each handle those. Almost all the time, people cannot cool off or stop playing and thus the disaster will strike. Probably 99.98 to 99.99.9% of the times players win. IMO and Experience.
Again, problem being, player observation, awareness, beliefs and betting decision to coincide with events that are happening.

That's interesting.
Do you want to say something more on that?
as.
No because I am digesting. :) And I got to go. Later.

Al, of course your post provides important informations
Almost all the time, people cannot cool off or stop playing and thus the disaster will strike. Probably 99.98 to 99.99.9% of the times players win. IMO and Experience.
This part is of extraordinary importance.
Bac players lose a lot more than expected by math as they want to recover too rapidly.
Or simply they want to recover trying to guess the unguessable.
They start betting side bets when losing and actually they should do right the opposite.
Simply put, people win less on positive patterns and lose more on negative ones.
In reality the sum is always zero (plus the vig burden).
Back to topics.
Every random game is formed by streaks and singles, the same about baccarat regarding the quality of the hands (not the results).
The exact points evaluation don't add anything worth of it; it's too complex and quite unreliable for the volatlity impact.
People emphasizes positively or negatively when "miracles" decide the hand outcome.
They shout with joy when their bet on player 4 catches a third card 7 and banker with 5 catches another 5. They win with 1 vs zero but they should be unhappy as they have totally mistaken which side to bet on. In fact P 4  B 5 is one of the best opportunities to get an advantage (on B, of course).
Miracles (there are tons of them) are just a very small part of the total happenings at baccarat. And they tend to alter the general flow of probabilities very rarely.
They seem to do but they do not. Forget the hands won or lost by miracles. They tend to confuse.
Regarding the quality of initial 4card hands we have four main fields to register singles or streaks at either side:
natural/standing points one side
drawing points one side
P drawing/ B standing 3456 (asym hand) both sides
P drawing/ B drawing
The very best player in the universe is the person capable to get the P draw/ B standing 3456 situation at least one time over 89 attempts (mathematically it's about 1/11). Naturally he will bet always Banker.
The second best player in the world is the player capable to get a drawing hand on P side at least 7375% of the times. Again he's going to wager Banker.
The third best player is the Player bettor capable to get at least 45% of the time a standing/natural hand.
Period.
You'll notice that the worst option we could have at baccarat is to get a drawing/drawing situation. It's true that if we bet P side we are playing a zero edge game but we are in huge trouble if we are wagering B (as it's payed 0.95:1 or prone to get some taxed hands as F7, etc).
So not everytime a P drawing hand is good for Banker. Fortunately the pure B drawing hands are few (0, 1 and 2); 3,4,5,6 elicit the precious asym situation and 7,8 and 9 stand.
Fast is fine but accuracy is everything (Wyatt Earp)
At baccarat we'll win itlr only if we are able to catch the various flows (S, D, N, etc) that advantage mathematically one side.
Easy to see that it's impossible to be accurate playing every hand or most hands. It's like to admit that we are able to catch every single flow happening at the table.
Therefore now we can rely upon two different levels of thinking and classification: results and quality of the first initial points.
Sometimes those two levels collide and those are the best opportunities to put a real wager.
By now we have talked about first four initial cards. But also the third card plays a huge, albeit secondary, role.
Next time.
as.

That's interesting.
Do you want to say something more on that?
as.
Singles rule the shoe. Are the singles consistent?
If no singles OR if all singles chop at least once OR if all singles stay solitary then bet every hand and easy to win every shoe. :'( But above seldom happens. But can happen for sections of the shoe.
If we can guess or predict what happens when a singleton occurs we can win easily. The repeats? Go for long runs  or not. Bet them "longest gone" or "longer still" (where's the Gr8 one?) or not.
Don't want to bet a lot of hands? Bet for follow or chop one time all shoe long. Let the rest go.
Proper betting, MM, discipline, patience. Variance goes both ways.
Happy Thanksgiving to all!

Thanks Jimskie!!!
After all singles provide less issues than streaks. A single is a single, streaks are of many kinds.
I mean that if we hope to get an initial streak, we should be happy to win the first hand. If we keep flat betting the streak, we need at least a streak of three to be ahead providing we continue to wager the streak until it stops.
Third card flow.
Everybody has noticed that more often than not third cards greatly helps or totally not the player side. Sometimes miracles happen but they do not alter too much the shoe texture.
The same, this time more easy to understand, when player is standing and banker is drawing a third card. Obviously we do not want to find ourselves in such situation.
Remember that from a general point of view, a third card is a helpful card more often than not.
Asians like to shout "monkey" when they are betting a possible not drawing banker and waiting for the third card to show up, but they forget that the probability to get a monkey is "just" 30.76%.
Thus nearly 70% of the times they are dog to see what they wish to see.
Of course a third card could be an 8 or 9 or an high card damaging the Player or Banker hand. Or this card is going to make an unbeatable or hugely favorite P hand. Banker has the advantage to act after Player but it has no gain to draw if P is standing.
So how to consider a third card as good or bad from a player or banker perspective?
First, when playing baccarat we shouldn't want to see a third card falling on the side we are betting into.
If it happens we are losing money, except when we catch the quite rare pure drawingdrawing situations and we're betting P side.
When betting P side we want a standing point, when we are betting B side we want P drawing and B having any point different from 0, 1 or 2.
Nonetheless, third card has a sort of natural flow in direction to either help or not the side we are betting into.
Most people don't focus enough on third card nature as a large part of outcomes is decided by first four initial cards.
More later.
as.

Asym,
It all boils down to, how many times the 'event' (whatever it might be) happens and the players catches it, sees it, or capitalizes on it.
Many will attempt to turn all that around and convert it all into math, stats, patterns and trends, etc. Which cannot be accurately done.
Non of them will consistently reoccur within any set parameters, no matter how a person tries to run the theory.
Better understanding of that and the game is experience. The problem for most is the lack of funds to their continual depleting of what they believe is the ideal bank roll or buyin, etc.
Personally I can make huge amounts of profit on a 7 or 10 or 14 chopchop streak or a 12 repeating P or B streak in a row, as well 8 times (16 hands) doubles or anyone of countless other events. The problem lies in between those events and profitable times as to each of our 'cooling off' periods and how we each handle those. Almost all the time, people cannot cool off or stop playing and thus the disaster will strike. Probably 99.98 to 99.99.9% of the times players win. IMO and Experience.
Again, problem being, player observation, awareness, beliefs and betting decision to coincide with events that are happening.
I don't want to change the theme of this thread but I'll comment anyway. So one could say just flat bet or no bet until such a time when a "possibility" or pattern or streak exists than bet and if win first one or two bets keep bumping up hoping for those "infrequents" to continue. Say double up or UAYW Fibonacci as example.
Seems plausible but those "in betweens" may very well out number the big wins. ???

I don't want to change the theme of this thread but I'll comment anyway. So one could say just flat bet or no bet until such a time when a "possibility" or pattern or streak exists than bet and if win first one or two bets keep bumping up hoping for those "infrequents" to continue. Say double up or UAYW Fibonacci as example.
Seems plausible but those "in betweens" may very well out number the big wins. ???
"Seems plausible but those "in betweens" may very well out number the big wins. ???"
Yes, possibly we are on the same page here?
Hence, you have to wager/play to make money. Sitting there and not wagering and missing opportunities/events only frustrates and plays on the player's emotions and thought process. Like someone standing there behind you, telling everyone what it has to be and then saying, "see I told you" or if they were wrong, "sorry, that is what I thought" and shrugging their shoulders.
But, the inbetween times are 'absolute terror times' on most players or another way of saying it, 'gave back all of the win and then some' times.

One thing about stadium at MoSun you can sit there with your IPAD and watch a movie on Netflix and just bet 5 bucks or nothing until your stuff comes up. LOL And you can watch two games at a time! No smoking, no yelling, no waiting for somebody to squeeze the stupid cards! hahahaha

One thing about stadium at MoSun you can sit there with your IPAD and watch a movie on Netflix and just bet 5 bucks or nothing until your stuff comes up. LOL And you can watch two games at a time! No smoking, no yelling, no waiting for somebody to squeeze the stupid cards! hahahaha
Probably another post is better to discuss pros and cons of your comment, but yes, there are two different types of play in baccarat.
Camaraderie and the original big table or even Midi/Macau style can produce larger, well coordinated wins, especially for those that gamble for that style. Then there is most certainly the grind or the relaxed or slot machine style loner play with the newer stadium the past few years.

Probably another post is better to discuss pros and cons of your comment, but yes, there are two different types of play in baccarat.
Camaraderie and the original big table or even Midi/Macau style can produce larger, well coordinated wins, especially for those that gamble for that style. Then there is most certainly the grind or the relaxed or slot machine style loner play with the newer stadium the past few years.
Stadium at MoSun are regular live shoes. Bet $5$15,000.00

Asym,
There are many things that a player can do that will harm himself (quickly or eventually) when gambling at baccarat. Some selfinduced and others are there and never noticed by the players.
I tried to define what I wholeheartedly think can help many serious baccarat players, which is my "Sections & Turning Points" thread.
Problem is with baccarat, many on the forums here want and demand tangible, mathematical and statistical results to back up wagering. IT DOES NOT EXIST & NEVER WILL.
There are so many paradoxical happenings and interpretations, that can be capitalized on and used in enormous profitable ways, or just used as a safeguard for players. Open your minds and better your play.

Although your "sections and turning points" post is very valuable, we can't forget that power of math and statistics.
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.
Say 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.
as.

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.
Say 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

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

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.

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) 56 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 45 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.

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.

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.

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 alsois 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 realserious 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 bookyou 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 strangeextremely strange because tonight you can win or lose by doing same exact thing you did last time. Baccarat is NOT like cookingwhere there is a certain and a proven way to prepare a dish. It doesn't changeunless 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 themhandle ourselves, our moneyour thought process and our visionsdesireswantsour realization and how each accept the losses or the wins within each shoe and session we play."

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.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.
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 1step random walk, SR a 2step random walk and CPR a 3step 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 8step 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 8step 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 (chisquare, 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 34 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 34 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 34 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 buyins.
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 itif 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.

Nice reply Al. Thanks.
It's quite known that I'm hardly working to set up a no brainer mechanical method capable to get the best of it no matter how whimsically will get the hands distribution.
Many shoes are not playable at all just for the reasons Al outlined in his several posts.
This as sh.it tends to come out in clusters than being balanced in subsequent portions of the shoe.
As well as good outcomes can be detected right at the start.
Into a finite and dependent model, probability works by various degrees and whereas some levels are "unlikely" reached, our best move is to not play at all.
Notice that imo we do not want to follow "unlikely" lines, we just want to get rid of them.
Baccarat is a game of balancements and deviations, whenever a given deviation is "due" we follow it, whenever is harshly going against the "expected" (it's sufficent to lose 2 bets in a row) we better wait the next shoe.
Imo never ever try to adhere at an "unlikely" distribution as it's more inclined to form difficult detectable results.
It's like poker where to get an edge you have to fold some possible best hands.
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 itif not all of it would have gone back to the casino.
The two of you crack me up! I mean you and John, Glen. No matter what either of you say the other pats you on the back and says "spot on." Yet one says the math and computer sim is hogwash and bets many hands based on past history while the other insists flat betting few hands based on mathematical edge is the only way to win! There are no two players that couldn't play more opposite than you two.
But to your last statement quoted above, Glen. NONSENSE! We can just as easily got even more wins. Quitting while ahead always prudent psychology but in no way increases the probability of losing. I do but many times regret it. Here's a good example from today:
WWWW L WWW LLLL WWW L W LL W L WW L W LL W L WWWWWWWWWW L and quit +45 units. The interesting thing was the last 12 hands went pp BB pp BB pp BBB and quit losing to the 3 B. But the rest of the shoe finished with:pp BBB pp BBBB pp B pppp.
Hadn't been a singleton last 14 hands or so! Just betting for the dom 2nd line would have reaped more wins. Shi.t. Probably would have made another 510 units. It happens. Long dragon can come anytime.
FYI. Next shoe went L W L WWWWW LLLLL WWWWWWW LL WWWW L QUIT +27 units. (made some mistakes on that 5 LIAR given the history.)grrrrr

I agree with you, but I was up literally hundreds of units, it was enough. I would have struggled or won and lost at best. The best opportunities are not always there, sticking around and praying for more or waiting for more would be frustrating and tempting. I do believe it was well after midnight as well with an hour and half drive home and had to get up by 6 am. I know myself and the same as the days I was in NYC or NJ and at Mo Sun or FW and it was midnight or 1 AM and I had a business to open early in the morning, limits are limits and things get complicated when a person plays to win and is not at ease.
Good job on the wins for sure!

Many shoes are not playable at all just for the reasons Al outlined in his several posts.
I guess I missed anything Glen wrote about unplayable shoes. Maybe you could opine on the subject and present an example "unplayable" shoe? Thanks.
J
[/quote]

You guys need to have my problems trying to get a game.
Unable to get access to my local casino (no viable reason given, other than they don't like how I played perhaps), another local casino have removed the game al together. So have to travel to the formers sister casino (Gentings) 30 miles away. I take the train which don't run 24 hours, so either have to rush to catch the last train before midnight or stay until 5:30am, no matter if I've hit my goal target. I dislike like playing after getting what I went for, because the longer you play the more difficult self control becomes, besides who wants to risk turning a profit into a loss :thumbsup:
I have not had to rebuy at all this year and am making 100%minimum of my buyin, usually 8 ~ 12 shoes per session, it is a slog, but safe, the ultimate grind.
Decided to reactivate my Grosvenor online account today, live table from Victoria London, why not play at home when I'm too buggered to travel, for some extra extra tax free cash.
Played first shoe no drama's, won 13 bets lost 5.
Second shoe, I placed a bet 4 bloody times and was logged out of the site, EACH TIME THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN WINNING BETS. B@stards, I finished the second shoe winning 7 and losing 1 bet, should ve been W11 L1. Complained like hell to their support people, they will investigate, meanwhile, in total disgust I withdrew my deposit and winning.
Wasn't playing big, very small in fact, maybe it was nothing, maybe they didn't like the win ratio and the fact I sit out a lot of hands.
All based on Mathematics, couldn't care less what pattern(s) "random binary decisions" are producing, as they are IMO meaningless.
Anyway, if sputnik reads this post, I have a question for you (or anybody who fancies it).
What is the ecart (SD) of a 128/1 outcome occurring 2 times and 3 times within 8 trials? I'm curious!!!
In a perfect scenario a 128/1 trial would occur twice per 129 trials, however with random outcomes, nothing is perfect, anything can occur, as in multiple occurrences of 128/1 trials within a small sample of 7/8 attempts. I was interested in the actual SD.
Trust that makes sense and wasn't too confusing, back to the train station tomorrow. >:D

I guess I missed anything Glen wrote about unplayable shoes. Maybe you could opine on the subject and present an example "unplayable" shoe? Thanks.
J
In order to win two units one needs to win one unit first.
It's a mathematically undisputable fact that it's a lot more likely to be ahead of one unit than to be ahead of two units and so on by a logarithimic scale.
Therefore any strategic plan should be oriented to get that one unit profit per a given series of trials and this is an awesome result as it will deny the math negative edge.
When an initial loss comes around, we must hope that subsequent outcomes will first balance the previous loss, then inverting the losing line dictated by the first loss.
In a word, to get a profit we need two positive results to balance that first loss.
Without a verified edge, attempts directed to get a balancement even by the use of progressions represent a totally worthless effort. That is it will be more likely to be +1 after a 0 cutoff scenario than to be +1 after a 1 spot.
People who like to state they can get multiple winning units per any given shoe are bighornshitting themselves and anyone reading them.
It's not fkng possible to be ahead of multiple units not only per any single shoe but per a decent sample of shoes unless whether a lucky (unlikely) positive variance is acting.
We can't be right on every shoe dealt, maybe placing the "turning point" to 1 is the best option to get an edge itlr, that is to get rid of that shoe (best if the process is made fictionally).
To get a long term edge at this game one needs to bet huge and very rarely and it would be an outrageous statement to say otherwise. Especially if someone tries to demonstrate that every single shoe is controllable, a total fkng bighornshit.
No human can be more right than what probability and math dictate, otherwise this game wouldn't exist.
I'll be more convinced of the contrary if any "foolproof system" claimer would bet $1000 or more per hand, and this thing isn't going to happen.
Watch me when I'm playing and you'll get a better idea of what I'm talking about.
as.

At least when I'm sober and focused :)
as.

At least when I'm sober and focused :)
as.
Were you sober when you wrote that? Are you calling your bud a bighornshit loser lyin' coksuker? ;) Because he doesn't believe any of that since he plays many hands a shoe and does raise his bet.
Quick shoe yesterday:
L WWW L W L W LL WW LLL WW LL W LL WWWWWW L W LLL WWW L WWWW LLLL WWW L W L W L WW

"To get a long term edge at this game one needs to bet huge and very rarely and it would be an outrageous statement to say otherwise. Especially if someone tries to demonstrate that every single shoe is controllable, a total fkng bighornshit".
The size of the huge wagers is all in perspective to the buy in as well as the average or the regular wagers of that player.
Every shoe is not controllable, 100 percent in agreement with that one. Whomever says that either just started playing, has not played for any length of time and/or is attempting to spark up some drama talk.

What should make "unbeatable" a given plan?
My answer: the certainty that a class of events must show up per any shoe at different degrees of presentation.
I'm not talking about a very very high probability that something is going to happen but the certainty that something happens.
Of course just knowing that something is 100% going to show up doesn't help us too much as we need to estimate when and how many times those events come out per any shoe.
In a word, we must build a proportion between searched events and number of attempts.
If we know that some shoes will provide just one searched event, we must restrict at most our attempts to spot this event as we're risking many to win one.
Conversely, knowing that some shoes will present many searched events, money utilized to spot those situations will be spent with a way higher probability to be right AT LEAST IN ONE SPOT. That is the minimum requirement of certainty we should look for.
That is I do not want to win several bets within limited intervals of time with high degree of uncertainty but to win very little in safe conditions of certainty within relatively large amount of samples.
If such certainty would be ALWAYS limited in the space of 56 attempts per shoe, a simple martingale would solve the problem.
Unfortunately not every shoe will provide the room to make 56 attempts, in other words certainty becomes certainty only in selected circumstances.
And not by magical forces, just for a matter of space as any shoe is a finite separated dependent world.
See tomorrow
as.

Hello Asym,
Take Al's turning points/sections as an example. Looking at his examples, you might get on average 4/5 of these throughout a shoe. They don't appear one after the other in short order, rather they appear spread out. So here you have several opportunities to attack and also know that one particular characteristic has given way to another. I think this is a worthwhile way to look for that 'certainty' where you have some information to help/guide you.

AsymBacGuy why not stop with the clues and riddles, simply post a shoe to explain exactly and precisely what you are referring to. It is that easy, no need to make things complicated.
I tend to agree with Glen's statement which is in bold and underlined a few posts up.

Thanks for your inputs and replies.
Look how awesome is to know that one specific situation is going to happen (or not) per a given class of shoes dealt.
But the specific situation must be firmly set up in mind BEFORE playing and adjusted accordingly to what the shoe produces but always in terms of "playable" or "not playable" shoe.
In order to do that we need to take advantage or, even better, to build several random walks endorsing the probability to look for the searched situation.
Playing by instinct or by experience may be valuable random walks but too much affected by emotional and actual factors. More importantly playing instinctively leads to bet too many hands.
Five random walks are directly diplayed on the screen (big road, bead plate road, etc) but we could build infinite random walks even not based upon the B/P results (for example about the first and second card dealt).
For example, one of the artificial road one can easily add is the third to last hand registration.
We wait three resolved hands then the fourth hand will be classified going back three hands, then registering it into two separated columns (S=same, O=opposite).
for example:
BBPPPBPPBPPBBBB is
OOOSSSSSOOS
Of course there's no a direct value in registering the outcomes in such a way, it's just a ploy to raise the probability to cross the searched situation that could be delayed on other roads.
But the real value of registering multiple random walks simultaneously is whenever our plan dictates to get B or P on more than half of all random walks considered.
The reason is all about the difficulty to get a sudden inversion of probability's plan on many roads, at least on more than half of them.
In case our plan suggests all roads to get the same outcome in the same point (a relatively rare finding even adopting only 3 or 4 roads), our wager will get an astounding EV+.
Despite the wonderful profits such scheme will produce, I know there's a methodological issue to be solved: the presence of ties. At least theoretically.
Since we have to discount ties in our registrations (besides big road and bead plate) we know that results' distribution may be affected in some way.
In a word, shoes particularly rich of ties at the start should be avoided (along with the shoes not fitting other conditions we're looking for).
as.

You said; "Playing by instinct or by experience may be valuable random walks but too much affected by emotional and actual factors. More importantly playing instinctively leads to bet too many hands."
1) Exactly;
2) SpotOn;
3) Absolutely;
4) No Argument;
5) 100%;
6) Again, all the above 100 times!
However, if you do not play, you cannot win. The emotional aspect of the game is huge and countless people playing for years never recognize that, address that or factor it in.

Thanks Al.
We're speaking the same language even though is taken by different angles.
There's no fkng way that playing into a random taxed model we'll be more right than wrong by instinct or by following trends or by mechanical placements unless we assess carefully what's happening, what's happened so far and what is slightly more likely to happen.
Moreover, we should know what's our real goal per every session played. We can't hope to win every session and we can't break even after an harsh losing session.
Are casinos going to win every fkng day or week? No way.
The certainty of a given outcome can only be extracted by the proper use of time or by utilizing other tools (defect of randomness for example).
Example.
We know that the probability to get a big road shoe without any B or P single or streak or double or 3+ streak is close to zero.
But if we consider the common three additional derived roads is absolutely zero. ZERO. Mathematically.
Going down to some of less likely outcomes and testing a lot of real shoes, we'll see that what happened so far tends to represent it in the same shoe and, at a lesser degree, what not happened so far gets a slightly increased probability to appear.
The process is endorsed by a supposedly flaw of randomness.
The problem is when to start to bet and when to stop it.
It should be an idiocy to stop the betting when crossing a winning streak, but the exact counterpart (stopping to bet when losing) will provide huger benefits.
Casinos want us to gamble, playing every hand or betting side bets.
Therefore we should disappoint their hopes, so betting very few hands (or betting small every hand and wagering 10x or more on key hands).
It's very likely that a team formed by me, Al, Sputnik, roversi, Bally and some others will crush every casino in the world by the simple concept of convergence of probability taken by different angles.
To get a decent profit we must join $1000 or $2000 min tables, let casinos think we're stupi.d gamblers.
Our goal will be to be banned in the casino we're playing at.
Our motto is
put your fkng math edge in your behind
as.

Some shoes are unplayable
You've heard this statement many times from me.
I will try to illustrate my point.
Say the worst driver in the universe is 300 feet behind the finish line and Lewis Hamilton is half a mile behind.
Who would bet Hamilton as winner?
Of course the probability to get Hamilton as winner isn't zero but very close to it.
Translating this into baccarat, per any single shoe it's really really unlikely not to get at least one 3+ banker streak and/or at least one P single and many other "expected" situations.
Nonetheless since any shoe is a finite space, we know that the more we're going through it without finding what we're looking for, higher will be the probabilities to get such unlikely situations.
Even if we finally find a single or a couple of expected situations, the failed previous attempts will pose a serious or letal threat to our bankroll.
When the limited space is more and more consumed and things went in the wrong direction, we risk to place worthless bets.
Good.
What about abandoning our strategic plan and starting to bet what it seem to be predominant?
Wrong choice, imo.
First, quitting our plan trying to get positive outcomes while denying (even temporarily) our studies is a mistake.
If we have ascertained that A>B, A remains favorite period.
Think when you are at a virtual blackjack table getting a positive count of +18 where dealer keep getting 20, 21 and naturals and you are allowed to wager the dealer's side. Are you really interested to wager the dealer's side?
If the answer is yes you should quit gambling immediately.
Second.
If things should go everytime as expected or almost as expected, gambling games wouldn't exist at all.
Even the math advantaged houses rely upon a long term edge.
And even if it would appear contradictory to what I've been sayed so far, sometimes the house hopes that a given shoe will finish ASAP.
Therefore, what not happened so far, especially whether is more "due", is likely to not present for the subsequent portions of the shoe.
More "due" could be interpreted as a kind of balancement, a strong unexpected predominance or a too huge expected predominance.
Third.
Are we willing to guess a random world per every single fkng shoe dealt just because we think that we are able to possede the instincts to do that?
If so, contact NASA or MIT and you'll get more substantial rewards than playing this silly game.
Fourth.
Any single choice we make forms the large picture. More choices = more mistakes. It's a human feature and it has a general value.
It's a proven fact that bad choices will endorse more bad choices and good choices (even made by mistake) will more likely lead to good choices.
In a sense either good and bad choices will distribute more by runs than by singles.
And to get good choices in a row we must first get an initial good choice.
Thus if the shoe we are facing isn't going toward our plan, tell the casino to fk off, that is not to play a dime.
Remember that baccarat outcomes are already preordered and nothing will change their pace.
Final note
If a bac player have found betting lines capable to get a long term edge, this edge will be quite limited hence susceptible to great fluctuations. That's why we should think about the large picture and not about the stupi.d single shoe we're playing at.
as.

I agree about "large picture",about instinct and about small wins and big fluctuations even with EV+.
I'm not convinced about your theory ,illustrated also in some old your messages ,concerning stop playing if at the beginning of a shoe you have some negative decisions with respect to your attack.
You mentioned 3P+ at the beginning, as very bad also for the rest of the shoe,if you are looking for agglomeration 1 and/or 2 P .
No statistical or mathematical evidence of this theory and my test don't confirm it too.
Also about agglomeration of BB I'm not of your opinion.
Several BB agglomerated,even a run of four time BB very frequent....

Final note
If a bac player have found betting lines capable to get a long term edge, this edge will be quite limited hence susceptible to great fluctuations. That's why we should think about the large picture and not about the stupi.d single shoe we're playing at.
as.
Hello Asym, I was thinking about what you were saying regarding great fluctuations. I am sure many people would agree and think to themselves ''let's suppose you have a 1 or 2% edge similar to card counting in BJ, then surely the fluctuations would be similar.''
However the difference that I see is that in BJ, the dealer has the same chance to get the good hands as well. It's annoying to sit there for an hour, get a positive true count and then start laying out some decent bets only to see the dealer keep pipping your 19 with a 20 or getting a BJ against your 20. In Baccarat, the dealer doesn't get to come along for the ride if you are reading things well at any given moment in time. They (the Casino) have to take the losses and I see that as a huge difference between the two games.
cheers

Can I please interject here for certain points?
REF:
"Final note. If a bac player have found betting lines capable to get a long term edge, this edge will be quite limited hence susceptible to great fluctuations. That's why we should think about the large picture and not about the stupi.d single shoe we're playing at.
as."
These stupid shoes have made me huge amounts of money as compared to the grind and all the other ones, if played with isolation and then forgotten about as far as what normally happens, if I can borrow and use the word normally as some kind of explanation.
Look at the pictures I post almost on a regular basis.
If I look at the large picture I would lose every session, IMO. Because the large picture brings on too much and too many possibilities that probably will not happen in the same amount of time we are sitting there playing. What is going to happen is that STUPID SHOE with 2025 Players to 3 Bankers immediately or 2025 Bankers with 3 Players immediately, or 6 Panda 8s with three of them back to back to back or 15 Players and a few hands later 16 Bankers or two 3 card 8/9s followed by 4 Fortune 7s out of 7 or 8 straight Bankers hands winning or 7 doubles followed by 8 singles followed by 4 sets of 4 followed by (?). And we would missed it all because we are expecting the long run with a calm mixture of what NORMALLY happens.
But either way, with those stupid shoes or the calm normal one, if a player wagers strictly for those stupid crazy shoes as I have mentioned and shown lately and repeatably posted, he will go broke because there are more of the other calm and noncrazy type of shoes. But when he is exposed to those other noncrazy and normal ones he will only make so much that will also disappear on his attempt to continue the same wagering pattern/decisions on ones that appear normal and calm but will not match his wagering, or eventually capitalize on those stupid ones when some other players are pulling down tens of thousands of dollars within a shoe or two. Either way, any repetitive player doing the same thing will lose, either his bank roll or every buy in or just hopefully break even and recoup his losses because he stayed wagering the same on whatever he was attempting for, in dreadful and wrongful wagering consistency decision making/planning.
IMO and experience and realizing profit on those stupid shoes. My thoughts attempted to come out. And not as a put down or a chastising attempt either. As reality.
My full 2 cents on 2 important subject raised by AsymB: https://betselection.cc/alrelax'sblog/twothingsrepresentslongtermedgeandstupidshoes/msg66784/#msg66784

Hi and thanks for your replies!
@roversi.
Look, of course I have got a statistical significance about what I'm talking about.
Anytime you are playing a shoe getting a strong P predominance at the start, you are getting a lower probability on certain subsequent "more expected" events as the room to get them is more limited albeit slightly.
It's not to be forgotten that asymmetrical force is very often nullified (inversed) in P predominant shoes, thus B is sailing mainly on a 50/50 proposition.
@bally
You are right, yet in positive counts a bj counter could bet two or more spots thus enlarging the probability to get a natural or a doubling hand.
A luxury we can't have at baccarat, being an on/off single game.
@alrelax
The situations you depicted are quite unlikely being too much left or right deviated from the center of the bell curve, I generally prefer to let them go without betting even if I'd have won a lot wagering on them.
Of course, what I need when I encounter such deviated situations is to be at least one hand ahead as the rest is just a winning streak unless a WL event occures (break even or close to it).
Therefore when in doubt I tend to follow things, even though they are unlikely.
Nonetheless, my records show that I have made more money wagering shoes more adapting to my approach at the start then trying to get a "reverse line" albeit more expected (theoretically).
Naturally, if I think that shoes are not properly shuffled and outcomes tend to get a kind of univocal line I'll ride 'em, partially forgetting my primary plan.
I do not care to be right or wrong, I do care to win.
as.