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....

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on June 03, 2019, 11:48:05 PM

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 20-25 Players to 3 Bankers immediately or 20-25 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 non-crazy type of shoes.  But when he is exposed to those other non-crazy 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's-blog/two-things-re-presents-long-term-edge-and-stupid-shoes/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.



   

 

as
I took a few steps back in an attempt to try to better understand your thoughts on this thread and others...
Starting with your initial post on this thread...
"We'll bet a 1-2 unit progression whenever a P single or a P double had come out, in order to get at least a two P 1-2 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 2-3 or 1-3. Anything different from that (as 1-1, 1-2, 2-1 or 2-2), will go in our favor."


To meet the favorable results in the 2nd paragraph...it "seems" that the 1-2 betting progression would be used such that the initial bet (1) would be to bet that all P1s would go opposite...two wins would result in 1-1 and end of betting sequence...a first win, 2nd loss, third win (2 progression) would result in 1-2....a first loss, 2nd win (2 progression), third win would result in 2-1...and a first loss, 2nd win, 3rd loss, 4th win would result in 2-2...all resulting in "favorable" results.
Two losses in a row, either on first P bet (not listed) or second P bet listed as 2-3 and 1-3 would end the betting sequence as a loss.

Would appreciate your comments on this to see if it's anywhere close to your Plan #1...

Hi Rickk!

The principal aim of this plan is to win just one hand getting a general P 0.75 winning probability. If we are betting toward singles and doubles, we must hope that the third unwanted "3" won't come out after the other two different states (singles and doubles) had come out at least once each.
For example a P 1-1-1-1-1-1-3-1-1-1-1 sequence, despite being so attractive doesn't elicit any betting.
If in the same sequence the 3 would be replaced by a 2 (1-1-1-1-1-1-2-1-1-1-1) we'll get four wins when betting "infinitely" and just one win after the 1 that follows the 2.

The 1-2 unit progression was just an example; actually we generally use a softer 1-1.3 or 1-1.5 progression, meaning that the main effort is focused about singles as doubles are considered just a back-up plan.

Of course the 0.75 P winning probability is extracted from a perfect 50/50 proposition but we know that bac B/P probabilities jump from 0.5/0.5 (sym hands) to 0.5793/0.4207 (asym hands), therefore in no way we could think to really wager each hand by a real 0.5068/0.4932 probability ratio.
Especially when we are restricting at most our range of intervention by quantity and quality factors.

as.

Test post on older thread