Hi KFB!!

We play a 0.75% general probability of success in its innumerable forms (simpler patterns being as singles and doubles vs 3/3+ streaks, predominant two patterns vs a currently silent pattern, etc), but only "complex" patterns will get us an astounding "control" over the outcomes.

Example of a "complex" pattern by taking into account doubles and 3/3+ streaks:

A double followed by a 3/3+ streak is an isolated double, a double followed by another double is a clustered double pattern.

2-3/3+ = isolated pattern

2-2 = clustered pattern (1-step) 2-2-2 (2-step), etc

Itlr the number of isolated patterns MUST be 1/4 of the total scenarios, meaning that we'll expect clustered doubles 3/4 of the times.

At the same time those isolated patterns must catch up a more likely doubles clustered distribution completely disjointed from mere numbers. The Is/Cl ratio always stands at 1:3.

I mean that a 2-3-xxxx-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2 sequence remains a strong unlikely ratio shifted towards isolated patterns and not towards clustered patterns. Is=1 and Cl=1.
Therefore after this sequence we'll expect more 2s clustered than isolated 2s, even though the current 2/3 ratio is 9/1.
Of course we can't know about the precise lenght of those clustered events, just about that they must catch up a "quality" factor.
The same tool applies to the isolated events whenever the Is/Cl ratio is strongly or moderately shifted towards the right clustered side. (Meaning that now we'll expect more isolated events than clustered events).

Ideal successions and close-to-ideal successions

Assuming pA= 0.75 ans pB= 0.25 applied to any fighting A/B events, the ideal succession to be exploited will be:

AAABAAABAAABAAABAAAB...

Other close-to-ideal successions are:

AAxBAAxBAAxBAAxB... or

ABAABABABAxBABAA.. where the B element remains as isolated.
Notice that in this last example the A/B ratio is 9/6 so diverging from the expected probability being 11.25/4.75, yet we have tools to restrict the B range by quality issues, at least up to when this propensity will stops.

At real dealt shoes where we have doubts about a so called "perfect randomness" working at, the density of A/B outcomes will make a decisive role to what we're thinking to bet on.
For sure we know that cards are asymmetrically dealt, that is patterns must be affected by a kind of asymmetry working at various stages.

I mean that per every shoe dealt, values not reaching and/or surpassing a 3:1 A/B ratio are the norm.

Most bac players like to adopt a kind of "sky's the limit" approach, on the other end casinos rely upon the sure probability that sooner or later things will change. (HE is a way minor tool why casinos will collect their profits, side bets apart).

On our part we know that things will change (or stand) by more probable values (ranges), pressing positive or negative situations are just for losers.

as.

Your last words within your response were, "pressing positive or negative situations are just for losers."

True, but only if one continuously applies that approach.  Do not blankety say that.  One can quite handsomely make large profits by employing a quick and short positive heavy progression if one can also employ self control, IMO. 

Yeah, you are right Al. What I meant is the importance to patiently wait instead of forcing probabilities.

as.

"The shoe does not produce what a player desires".  Old school Confucius saying. 

Thx Asym for answering my questions up above.


Also, Asym in post #1095 above:

"...I mean that a 2-3-xxxx-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2 sequence remains a strong unlikely ratio shifted towards isolated patterns and not towards clustered patterns. Is=1 and Cl=1.
Therefore after this sequence we'll expect more 2s clustered than isolated 2s, even though the current 2/3 ratio is 9/1.
Of course we can't know about the precise lenght of those clustered events, just about that they must catch up a "quality" factor.
The same tool applies to the isolated events whenever the Is/Cl ratio is strongly or moderately shifted towards the right clustered side. (Meaning that now we'll expect more isolated events than clustered events)...."

    I agree 100% as most any event(simple or complex) that is heavily clumped will soon appear with longer gaps in between. Vice versa as well.

I also think we can assert the same claim for many other types of events: (e.g., Events occurring in-a-row will seldom continue and we should anticipate something different). 
What I mean is that we should not expect an 8-Deck shoe to present a certain event from beginning to end.
Its my opinion that at least part of the reason is the constant shifting between 4-5-6 cards per hand. Coupled with the fact cards are removed after only one use. So there is competition between other events wanting to show based on their own respective probability as well.



Cheers,

5 Things:

One MUST UNDERSTAND IN EXTREME DETAIL the ability to identify situations presented by a shoe.

Understand that hands change value with no rhythm, rhyme or reason, as well as possibly follow rhythm, rhyme and reason.

One MUST TAKE ADVANTAGE when the shoe is presenting hands that fit anything that can be deciphered by the player.

One must leave a winner if he has won anything sizable by employing a concrete MMM without deviation.

One must never say, "I'll win it back tomorrow or next session".

NOTE:  UNLIKE SO MANY BELIEVE, THERE IS NO RIGHT AND WRONG IF YOU ARE WINNING HANDS.  YOU ARE SIMPLY WINNING.  THINK ABOUT THAT STATEMENT.  Why did I say that??  Because when a player consciously thinks he was 'right' on a winning hand, he begins to wager for what he just won and then he enters a mean and vicious cycle once he losses a repetitive wager.

Thanks for your comments KFB and Al!

Recently we have built a possible useful "simple" answer to know whether a shoe will be playable (so profitable) or not (where the profitability seems to be denied by the actual card distribution), we'll see it later.

BTW (off topic): In around 5 minutes the Day 8 of The WSOP Main Event will start. There are 18 players left (10.112 entrants), among them there are a couple of poker players I admire the most:

Kristen Foxen (Canada) and Niklas Astedt (Sweden) that have demonstrated to play a wonderful brilliant poker.
Good luck to both, hope to see you at the Final Table!

as.

By now my "horses" seem to do quite well...

Back to baccarat.

The "average shoe distribution" relies upon the consecutiveness (range) of higher two-card initial points falling (or not) at the same side (B or P) as any two-card initial point (2CIP) is strongly favorite to win the final outcome.

Whenever 2CIPs follow an average probability to show up (meaning deviations are quite restricted, so well controllable) AND final results tend to follow such math advantage, it's a child's joke to get an edge over the house.

Problems rise up when the math advantaged side will succumb to the third(s) card impact too many times in a a row or by percentages going too distant from a general 2:1 shifted ratio.
In this instance the actual shoe becomes as "unplayable" as we have reasons to think that an average card distribution won't happen at this shoe or that is too whimsical to be exploited other than by luck.

And we know that "luck favors prepared minds" only if we're able to restrict its impact by verified (so more probable) limits, surpassed them we're not interested to chase anything.

Remember that playing with an edge means to spot a slight greater amount of 2CIP situations than average and not guessing the winning final hand no matter what.

In fact guessing the winning final hand is in direct relationship of how many MORE times we were able to spot a 2CIP situation than average, letting the third(s) card impact to get their job.

Whenever the third(s) card seems to alter too much in expected frequency an already math shifted situation, we should simply say to the house "let your hands flow, I won't bet a dime on this improbable succession".

In some way the bet selection issue is restricted by approximating at best the probability ranges of 2CIP events.

And those 2CIP events aren't so whimsically placed than one could think of, actually they are arranged by more likely ranges.
Then a strong factor altering the final results is made by the third(s) card impact, but most of the times what was math favorite to win remains favorite to produce the final winning hand, even if some harsh variance acts along the way.

4/13 of total rank cards are neutral (zero value) cards, if we add Aces to the neutral cards we know that 38.46% of the deck is most likely irrelevant to the final result, so the main bet selection should be oriented to prolong or stop an already 2CIP math shifted situation.

The decisive factor to take care of is that inferior 2CIP events winning the final hand by getting a value of third card are restarting the normal flow of 2CIP, no matter what were the univocal results happening at a same side.

It's 1 billion % certain that the vast majority of long streaks apparition do not come out from long sequences of 2CIP situations, but by taking advantage of the third card impact.
Normally such situations being underdog to alter the final results, yet they could entice long streaks formation.

as.

Note: 2CIP must be intended as the "higher" 2CIP falling at one side (H2CIP), obviuosly this is a symmetrical (but slight dependent) probability.

But clustered or isolated H2CIP situations are more affected by the actual card distribution, subtly privileging the opposite side which won the last hand.

Again, check your shoes and let me know how many "long" streaks come out from a homogeneous H2CIP situation.
Very few, most part of long streaks need to win "unfavorite" hands ("lucky" third card impact) even though is certain that a fair portion of the shifts (short streaks or any) between sides is caused by the same effect.
 
See you later

as.
   

It's impossible to track all the various card and pattern situations happening per every shoe dealt without an electronic (illegal) device and it's altogether obvious that there's no point to demonstrate publicly that such device could really help us to beat the game.

Actually many people utilize softwares to beat online games, mostly at poker sites in order to ascertain opponent moves by % ranges then putting those infos into the software which will tell them what would be the best approach to make.

So would it be a viable option to use a software to beat online baccarat games?

Probably it is, yet we strongly prefer to play live games for several reasons:

- Generally speaking at gambling we do not trust anyone, sometimes even if we can keep a visual direct approach of what is happening (so including some live action).

- Online games provide too short betting intervals between hands, a factor further aggravated by occasional disconnections.

- Our very diluted betting strategy suffers a lot when sites authomatically disconnect a player from the play, thus forcing us to rejoin the site with a sensible waste of time (and not witnessed hands dealt).
Of course betting every hand with a way lower standard unit will erase the problem but raising casinos' heat.

- Many hands are missing from the display. They happened but not registered. 

-Online it's more difficult to play huge sums and to collect them in brief time. We hate to lose serious money in minutes/hours but to collect winnings in days (or weeks).

- It's a sure fact that "too winning" players are banned from almost every site; frankly the 'trick' to set up new or multiple accounts (or other ploys) is annoying.

- Other

In summary it's way better to lose a fair part of our EV by choosing to bet live games than online games.
It's what we name as an approximated way to consider things.

Later

as.

There are few ways to consistently win and many ways to lose without any sensible probability to get even itlr (so losing more and more and more).

First, baccarat remains a strong EV- game featuring few EV+ spots along the way (experts never confirmed the EV+ spots appearance other than by a ridicolously low profitable edge extracted by card counting). Those "experts" are wrong experts.

Second, the only way to get an advantage is by spotting the (rare) situations where a given A pattern will more likely prolong or stop, a probability that "experts" consider as "symmetrical", that is not shifted toward a more probable outcome.
Another strong desert tortoise sh.it. 

As long as a given range of columns will be filled no matter how are distributed the outcomes, we know to be in a very good shape, even by not knowing precisely the "shifting points" intervening among columns (columns lenght).

Obviously streaky shoes are shortening the average columns lenght and chopping shoes are enlarging the columns number, yet the average columns number range remains quite restricted.

Actually some random walks "challenge" the model to provide LONG symmetrical (say homogeneous) situations, after all each shoe provides a sure asymmetrical card distribution better ascertained by registration paces different than consecutive B/P simple results.

Derived roads might be a possible answer but there are way better ways (random walks) capable to extract value by a sure asymmetrical card distribution forming streaks of more probable lenght and distribution shapes.

In a couple of days I'll present the distribution and relative weight of specific streaks lenght registered at a large live shoes sample by utilizing our main random walk, anybody could get his/her conclusions.

as.

Stay tuned because you'll get a better idea of what we're really relying upon, shoe per shoe.

You'll see that Alrelax and KFB ideas take an additional important role about our strategy, after all we are three players wagering serious money at the tables.

as.

 

Say that you're at least 100 fold more likely to win $10 millions by starting with a $10.000 bankroll than hoping to win the WSOP Main Event bullsh.it.

as.   

Be prepared to risk a large part or most or ALL of your bankroll at some spots, after all is the same thing "acute" smart poker players must do to win a WSOP NL hold'em tournament.

as. 

Hi Asym
In post #1103 above you say(and I agree) :

"...Note: 2CIP must be intended as the "higher" 2CIP falling at one side (H2CIP), obviuosly this is a symmetrical (but slight dependent) probability.

But clustered or isolated H2CIP situations are more affected by the actual card distribution, subtly privileging the opposite side which won the last hand...."

    Q wouldn't this favor P as P would prefer NOT to draw a third card since then B may be allowed to exercise its option(i.e., to draw or not to draw). E.G. lets say there are more 8/9 cards remaining and we see BPB_ , wager P??.

Thoughts?