Making things in a more complicated way, we could set up many different r.w.'s utillizing a pace different than 1.
After all the general law of independence of the results should work no matter how deep we want to classify the outcomes, right?

Thus a BPBBPPBPBBBBBBPBPPPPBPBBPPB succession could be

1-2-1-1-2-2-1-2-1-1-1-1-1-1-2-1-2-2-2-2-1-2-1-1-2-2-1 (1 pace) or

1-1-2-1-1-1-1-2-2-2-1-1-2-1 (2 pace) or

1-1-1-1-1-1-2-2-2 (3 pace)

Again summing the two adjacent numbers from left to right we'll get:

1 pace) 3-3-2-3-4-3-3-3-2-2-2-2-2-3-3-3-4-4-4-3-3-3-2-3-4-3 (runs: 12)

2 pace) 2-3-3-2-2-2-3-4-4-3-2-3-3 (runs: eight)

3 pace) 2-2-2-2-2-3-4-4 (runs: 3)

Skipping certain outcomes provides a better evaluation of the place selection impact, that is the main factor by which certain subsequences must be considered as collectives or not.
And naturally in this example the best indicator is the number of runs.

We should convert what others call "stop loss" or stop wins" cutoff points with the simple number of runs, especially if we want to disprove a real randomness.

Without boring to test many shoes, it's intuitive that a kind of asymmetrical force is acting along the way on the vast majority of shoes dealt, our task should be directed to spot the shoes where such asym force will be more likely to act on certain points.

Now let's sat we want to follow two opposite players, one player A wishing to parlay his bet up to 5 steps toward a new same number situation (being 2, 3 or 4) and the other one B wishing to make a progressive plan toward not getting same number clusters (up to 5 steps).

Player A will win anytime 5 or more consecutive homogeneous situations will show up (2-2..-3-3..-4-4.. 3-3, etc) and player B will win anytime a given number won't be clustered up to 5 times.

From a math point of view both players will get the same results getting different W/L frequencies.
In the practice things go quite differently.

as.   

Summarizing:

- no way you can find a long term profitable betting plan without speculating that outcomes are not perfectly randomly placed as random bac outcomes are unbeatable by a 1 billion degree. 

-  to ascertain outcomes are not properly random produced only place selection and probability after events tools can help you by strict scientifically accurate assessments. Some bac productions are better than others, meaning they involve a higher unrandomness factor.

- best way to take an advantage without suffering the variance impact is by looking just for one unit profit per a given amount of hands.

- no matter how's your strategy and which side you choose to bet, each set of two consecutive wagers must get a way higher 75% probability to win. Considering as Banker side as a steady advantaged option is one of the biggest mistake to make. Asym hands favoviring Banker don't come out so often, especially whether consecutively taken.

-  the game cannot be altered or predicted by human considerations, otherwise it wouldn't exist.

as.

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on March 23, 2020, 02:17:43 AM
Summarizing:

- no way you can find a long term profitable betting plan without speculating that outcomes are not perfectly randomly placed as random bac outcomes are unbeatable by a 1 billion degree. 

-  to ascertain outcomes are not properly random produced only place selection and probability after events tools can help you by strict scientifically accurate assessments. Some bac productions are better than others, meaning they involve a higher unrandomness factor.

- best way to take an advantage without suffering the variance impact is by looking just for one unit profit per a given amount of hands.

- no matter how's your strategy and which side you choose to bet, each set of two consecutive wagers must get a way higher 75% probability to win. Considering as Banker side as a steady advantaged option is one of the biggest mistake to make. Asym hands favoviring Banker don't come out so often, especially whether consecutively taken.

-  the game cannot be altered or predicted by human considerations, otherwise it wouldn't exist.

as.

Explaining certain finds are difficult.  Great writing.

Add my Sections & Turning Points and a player can start capitalize!

And so many baccarat players forget about that 5th card coming out that more often favors the players side rather than the bankers.   Especially with something that's foreseeable within a section.

Such as when the players have zero or even a 1, so often players pull that big card meaning a six, seven or eight and it puts the bankers out of the game for that hand or the players have that three, four, five or six and the players pull that small card again it puts the bankers out of the game for that hand.  And it happens repeatedly within a section like three or four players to one Banker, four or five players to one or two bankers then another one or two or three players to one banker and then three or four players to one or two bankers and then a little mini run comes out of 5, 6, 7, 8 players to one or two Bankers before it straightens out. 

And it's so easy to capitalize on all those players versus waiting for the bank to get strong. At least in my opinion, you know what I'm talking about.

Dear friend, I'm just looking forward to play with you and Lung (and maybe few others), I mean serious money I know three of us get.

Let's wait this fkng Covid-19 stuff stops.

as.






 

Oh yeah, don't forget some of the other things I wrote and one of the most important is  0, 1, 2, 3 ties and how things seem to stay the same no matter if it's players or ones and twos or whatever, but I find that holds true more so towards strong  players or chopping rather than Banker's clumping together, reference the low amounts of ties such as what's in these two shoes in the link.

https://betselection.cc/wagering-intricacies/heavy-player-bet-what-is-being-presented/

Ties are a complicated issue as any method must get rid of those "unresolved BP hands".
Yet they exist consuming space and cards.
In addition ties are way more likely when 6 cards are utilized to form a hand.

I fear that shoes containing a lot of ties perhaps are less manageable when using a "fixed" plan, but it would take a lot of time to ascertain their real impact over the different registrations I've discussed here.

Surely after a tie future real BP probabilities change, very slightly maybe still they change.

It should be interesting to study how many cards are utilized per each shoe in relationship of the r.w.'s applied, for example.
Notoriously most likely winning hands are formed by only 4 cards then by 5 cards. When more cards are utilized to produce a hand a sort of dilution effect may come out.

Anyway I firmly believe that any valuable method, system or approach when dictating to bet B or P that side must contain a mathematical advantaged situation on the first two cards dealt.
Therefore if I passed 70 minutes to wait for a profitable situation and I'm betting Player, I want Player to show a standing or natural point and not a K-4 catching a third card 4 vs a Banker standing 7.
Of course we could win a hand as underdog (or losing it as huge favorite), I'd prefer to lose it being favorite.

as.

Now suppose that in order to build our new sequences, instead of considering normal BP results we use the blue and red spots of the three displayed derived roads (big eye boy, small road and cockroach road).
Again we decide to assign the 1 value to red spots and 2 to blue spots.
Then we sum the two adjacent numbers from left to right.

Do have those new sequences the same features belonging to the sequences derived by the original BP succession?

as. 

Moreover could we connect in some way the three derived roads in order to get a unique distribution (r.w.) where dispersion values are way lower than expected?
Obviously knowing that only when all roads dictate to bet the same side such new r.w. exists and, more importantly, is bettable.

as.   

When all 3 roads predicting the same outcome supported by a definitive ?highway? on the Pearl chart, you can be sure its coming out the opposite. Pearl is the vertical presentation of 6 lines down. ?Highway? means across the horizontal line, all are the same for eg on the 3rd horizontal row across say 4 columns its all Banker so on the 5 th column the highway concept is expecting also a Banker. If this is supporter by all the 3 roads pointing to a banker, I would refrain from betting Banker or maybe minimise my bet as the whole table would be pouring on to Banker.

Its not schadenfreude to see a Player win in such a case but it happens too often. If it is so certain, the casinos would be taken to the cleaners. Just some reading. You of course, are free to disagree.

Stay blessed. First time playing online as Malaysia is locked down and the only casino here, Genting is closed. Online is with live dealers and 5 tables. Interesting. Like the stadium concept

Can I please interject here and just give my opinion?

That is, it is beatable, but it can also beat you.

The highest majority, not all but the highest majority of all players will not capitalize on the opportunities that are being presented by the shoe and then when they do they are so convinced  that's how they can beat it

Then the Dominos fall for the rest of the shoe or the following shoe, if you get what I mean.

Hi Lungyeh.
It's very very very likely players won't build long term profitable random walks (that is r.w.'s getting very low variance) by simply assembling the outcomes of the three derived roads I'm referring to (beb, sr and cockroach r).

And considering bead plate (placing outcomes in columns of 6 hands each) doesn't make the job. Dispersion values applied to such mechanical road are adhering to expected situations, that is to an unbeatable world.

Imo to get a long term profitable plan we must get rid of many unnecessary hands, those tending to surpass certain cutoff values that can easily hurt our strategy.
And from a strict statistical point of view, profitable situations won't arise so often. This because a supposedly unrandom world (the only one cause that make us long term winners) wil be quite diluted.

Imo the only way to beat baccarat is by considering strong asymmetrical random walks applied to a slight asymmetrical model as baccarat is.

For example, the situation where "infinite" PBB patterns show up in succession is one of the simplest event we should look for.
No matter how many P hands come between a PBB pattern and a new single B hand, we know that our plan starts after a precise situation happened. That is a sort of compromise between the most math probability to get another B and the very very slight propensity to get the opposite hand (P).

Vast majority of card distributions will place asymmetrical results on this plan, not necessarily strong favoring one event or the other one.
Of course it could "easily" happen on some shoes that the same asym situation will go on and on, meaning that our asymmetrical strategy will be canceled by an unlikely card distribution transforming a steady asym world into a seemingly symmetrical model.

Later some thoughts about derived roads.

as.

Quote from: alrelax on March 31, 2020, 12:54:01 PM
The highest majority, not all but the highest majority of all players will not capitalize on the opportunities that are being presented by the shoe and then when they do they are so convinced  that's how they can beat it

True, yet they do not realize that profitable opportunities won't come out around the corner.
That's why casinos entice players to bet every hand dealt, a sure recipe for disaster.

as. 

Think that no way a card distrbution working into an asymmetrical model can get symmetrical results for long and at various degrees. So in some sense and in order to build a long term plan we are compelled to wager towards asymmetricity. Unrandomness enforces such asymmetricity. 

Statistically speaking, it's just the number of runs (whatever intended) that confirm or not the randomness of our sample.
Since you can take for granted that live shoes aren't random produced, we are forced to evaluate the number and the probability to get asym results per every shoe dealt.

We know that card distributions can produce infinite results, yet the probability to get something is endorsed by restricting outcomes that tend to go beyond given points and we know that the best way to limit the results is by classifying them into 1, 2 and 3 situations.

Transforming into math such probabilites, we know that 1=50%, 2=25% and 3=25%.
Of course when wagering B side 1 probability is lower than 2 and, at at a lesser degree, 3>2 and the oppposite is true about P side.
Nonetheless and from a strict bet selection point of view, such asym values won't get much of a difference.

Best example is by considering my up #2, spots where we'll win first by hoping for a B single as it's lowering the general B>P propensity as itlr previous BB trigger must involve a kind of already worn-out asymmetrical force (providing BB-B gaps are close). Whether such asym math force hadn't acted yet, probability to get another B hand after a BB pattern is generally endorsed.

For the same reasons any 3 event will be followed or not by another 3 event and the general probability will be always 0.25%. Yet the actual probability is quite lowered or raised in some shoes and dependent on which random walks we choose to follow.

as.

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on April 05, 2020, 11:06:58 PM
Think that no way a card distrbution working into an asymmetrical model can get symmetrical results for long and at various degrees. So in some sense and in order to build a long term plan we are compelled to wager towards asymmetricity. Unrandomness enforces such asymmetricity. 

Statistically speaking, it's just the number of runs (whatever intended) that confirm or not the randomness of our sample.
Since you can take for granted that live shoes aren't random produced, we are forced to evaluate the number and the probability to get asym results per every shoe dealt.

We know that card distributions can produce infinite results, yet the probability to get something is endorsed by restricting outcomes that tend to go beyond given points and we know that the best way to limit the results is by classifying them into 1, 2 and 3 situations.

Transforming into math such probabilites, we know that 1=50%, 2=25% and 3=25%.
Of course when wagering B side 1 probability is lower than 2 and, at at a lesser degree, 3>2 and the oppposite is true about P side.
Nonetheless and from a strict bet selection point of view, such asym values won't get much of a difference.

Best example is by considering my up #2, spots where we'll win first by hoping for a B single as it's lowering the general B>P propensity as itlr previous BB trigger must involve a kind of already worn-out asymmetrical force (providing BB-B gaps are close). Whether such asym math force hadn't acted yet, probability to get another B hand after a BB pattern is generally endorsed.

For the same reasons any 3 event will be followed or not by another 3 event and the general probability will be always 0.25%. Yet the actual probability is quite lowered or raised in some shoes and dependent on which random walks we choose to follow.

as.

In some baccarat forums i have read that gamblers with a very good success used such strategy - in random.org get a random number from 0 to 1 list and, using 0 as banker and 1 as player, were betting in baccarat. What you can say about such a  method where bets are pre-determined ?

Difficult to answer without getting enough informations.

I think a predetermined plan must be set up simply by precise arithmetically solutions related to actual situations. Without those we're not going anywhere, imo.

Say I want to bet Player two times at resolved hands #35 and #36 after hands #1 and #23 have all shown Banker.
General probability will dictate that my probability of success will be 0.4932 x 0.4932, that is I'll lose both bets 25.68% of the times.
But if such hands will not involve an asym situation math favoring B side, the probability to lose is no higher than 25% and probably some card distributions favoring P side are lowering such percentage, hence my two consecutive bets will be EV+.
Is this predetermined plan going to get me an advantage? Of course it isn't.
Maybe those trigger hands were not involving an asymmetrical situation, thus slight enlarging the probablity to get one right on my selected bets, thus lowering my p.o.s. And vice versa.

Taken the problem by another perspective I could argue that the probability to get all Bankers on hands #1, #23, #35 and #36 is quite lowered as I'm considering distant outcomes.

Thinking this way I could build infinite random walks just to see whether my many 4 hand-patterns will confirm or not the general probability to happen.
But it's only the quality factor on the triggers chosen that makes the difference and not a relationship between two very different models not considering the "how".

as.