Imo it's only the connection of various patterns happening along any shoe that can make this game beatable.
Connection means the relationship working among different situations (r.w.'s) that show up along any shoe.
In this way we are not betting toward getting a steady state for long, instead to get a given state change after certain states not belonging to our multiple r.w.'s plan had occurred.

Nothing wrong to "ride" homogeneuos or shifted patterns, providing we have a solid reason to do that.
For example, if many asymmetrical hands provided only Player hands (thus inverting a sure general math advantage favoring B) future hands will be more likely to be symmetrically placed, hence any P bet payed 1:1 will be better than any B bet payed 0.95:1.
The argument by which future hands will be more likely placed on B side as "it is more due" is ridiculous. Any missed math opportunity having a low frequency of apparition is a missed opportunity for B side, period.
But we know that such situations arise by a quite low frequency thus we need more frequent occasions to put our money at risk.

Any shoe that baccarat's gods can provide is formed by multiple pattern steps, name them as runs, homogeneous patterns or whatever.
Now casinos will make their business by knowing that itlr our plans will get a lesser amount of homogeneous (easily detectable) patterns than any other situation. Moreover and from a strict math point of view every our bet is EV-, thus we'll surely go broke.

Sometimes shoes will provide easy betting situations (long runs, long chops, strong predominance, etc) and that's the main strategy 99.9% of bac players rely upon.
Unfortunately this is a short term favourable occurence.

More interesting is the fact that no matter what will be the future results distribution, some random walks will get an advantage or, better sayed, that some r.w.'s do not dictate to bet anything unless certain conditions are met. Some conditions are easily detcetable and others are more intricated.
If this way of thinking would be flawed, dispersion values wouldn't be affected by such kind of selection.

To get a practical example, think about how many 1-2 and 1-3 situations or BB consecutive doubles are coming or not after a given amount of hands dealt.

as.

I have posted pics of shoes with what i call, Sections.  And exactly what you  said here:  "Sometimes shoes will provide easy betting situations (long runs, long chops, strong predominance, etc) and that's the main strategy 99.9% of bac players rely upon.  Unfortunately this is a short term favourable occurence.", is spot on!
With the keywords being, sometimes and short term.

Exactly and it's not a coincidence that I've started this thread mentioning Kashiwagi and not only because he was one of the biggest high stakes bac player ever.

as.

Start thinking that any bac shoe dealt is asymmetrically placed as cards cannot be symmetrically placed along any single shoe, moreover as bac rules are not symmetrically intended. 
It's up to us to spot the situations where such asymmetricity gets a valuable strenght capable to invert the fkng house edge. And to be consistent long term winners we need just few spots to be ahead. 

It's intuitive that such asymmetricity cannot last for long or, better sayed, that this asym factor works at different degrees per any shoe dealt.

Notice that I'm not talking about Banker advantage, to get such advantage we need precise situations to appear as P drawing and B getting a 3,4,5 or 6 initial point.

Whenever a given asym level is surpassed (whatever intended), no one prediction is possible as the asym strenght will be "randomly" placed more often than not.

That's why is important to play shoes where asym levels won't reach huge values at the start.

as.

as...thanks for your information and perspective. Certainly is more than just interesting....I've read and re-read your posts and not sure I understand all of it, but I was able to use the asymmetrical "hand" in a few live sessions before things shut down...and was pretty successful with it.. in your post above, you refer to asymmetrical shoes...is there a larger asymmetrical picture we should be looking for or tracking in addition the just the individual hands ?  Again, appreciate your posts and looking forward to learning more. Thanks again...

Hi Rick and thanks!

I know the suggestions I'm disorderly posting cannot give the reader precise betting guidelines, it's made on purpose.

Yep, you took one of the fundamental points to beat bac.
Instead of wagering hoping for this or that or, even worse, to play general probabilities, we should focus to understand the asymmetrical level of the actual shoe.
To do that we need to put into action several r.w.'s, setting up the actual relative probability compared to the general 0.5068/0.4932 proposition.
If the dispersion values taken from a place selection point of view remain unchanged, baccarat is not beatable.

In a sense, we do not want to simply bet toward asymmetricity but instead toward certain different levels of asymmetricity that are present per each shoe dealt.
And of course the most favourable situation to look for is 1.

I'll write more on that in few days.

Cheers!

as.

A deck of cards shuffled decently is asymmetrical by definition.
Let's shuffle numerous times a simple 52 cards deck and register how many times three or four same suit cards are coming out consecutively. Of course after something had happened (say many spades were turned out), the future probability to get those consecutive suited cards on diamonds, clubs and hearts is enlarged in some way.
But no one would be so naive to think that after any single diamonds, clubs or hearts card coming out the future probability will be always enlarged or at least included within playable terms (assuming the game is EV-).
We could easily get a lot of decks with a low spades impact producing many D,C and H consecutive sequences not belonging to the 3 or 4 same suit occurence we are looking for.

Of course one could think that a possible strategic plan may be oriented  NOT to get long same suit sequences up to a point and naturally based upon the partial aknowledge of the removed cards nature as we've seen about the spades example.
And one could think that same suit cards on next decks may be "clumped" in some way as a physically perfect shuffle doesn't exist at all.

At baccarat things work differently as removed cards cannot sensibly affect future outcomes, yet baccarat is an asymmetrical proposition at the start and at every single point even without the natural asymmetrical cards impact.
Anyway the asym-asym value is so high that it's impossible any single deck dealt in the universe will be symmetrically placed as, simply put, symmetricity at baccarat cannot exist.

Now the problem is to spot the situations where a constant asymmetrical proposition made on two different levels (bac rules and card distribution) will reach very low dispersion values as something is "more due" no matter what.

Suppose casinos know the B doubles vulnerability and start arranging shoes to produce a lot of consecutive B doubles.
Who cares?
The B double plan is just one random walk, for example many B doubles will entice the probability to get many 1-2 B situations and we need just one to be ahead.
Casinos will arrange shoes to get a lot of B doubles and B 3+ streaks without any B single trigger thus destroying one half of my ub #1? Perfect, the vast majority of baccarat players will wager to follow the consecutive B streaks line.

Since almost no one bac shoe won't present at least one B single, we know that either plan #1 or #2 will get at least one win, more often (say everytime) multiple wins.

More on that tomorrow.

as.

The "alignment" curiosity

Suppose we want to arrange cards forming a shoe which provides all Banker or Player hands.
For simplicity we use just one deck.

One of the numerous card distribution producing all banker hands (and no ties) is:

A, A, K, 5, 3, 2, 3, 2, 2, K, 4, 10, 3, 9, 6, Q, J, 7, 5, 8, 5, 8, 5, 8, J, 10, 9, 7, A, Q, A, 6, 6, 4, 10, 4, J, 9, J, 2, 10, K, 4, K, 3, 8, Q, Q, 7, 9. (6,7 left as they can't produce a hand)

Such sequence provides 11 straight Banker hands and no tie:

B B B B B B B B B B B

Now let's remove from the play the first card (A) from the play and see what happens:

P P T B B B B B B B

Or the first two cards (A, A):

B B T B B B B B B B

Finally the first three cards (A, A, K):

P B T B B B B B B B

We see that results are not much affected by burning one, two o three cards and such thing happens with a lot of decks. In a sense we could deduce that this card distribution is Banker polarized; it's just a matter of time that results will be aligned with the original untouched sequence.

Even when multiple decks are utilized or no substantial card clumping is present (as 2-3 and 5-8 in the example),  things go quite in the same way, at least on the vast majority of the shoes dealt.

as.

isn't that because as the number of cards are taken away or used, there will come a time when it coincides with the intended pattern.

Mmm. Its food for thought.

View Profile Personal Message (Online)
(No subject)
? Sent to: AsymBacGuy on: April 29, 2020, 04:08:40 pm ?ReplyQuoteDelete
as....With regard to your last 2 posts, are you indicating that polarized (or strong side) sections of the shoe may be determined by a trigger of some sort, i.e. card values, or asym hands or lack of asym hands ) as opposed to a visual pattern that one side is starting to occur more frequently than the other ? Thanks

Hi Rickk!

Obviously patterns are the direct product of either math and card distribution.
To be consistent winners on long terms we need both.

For example there's no point to bet Banker if we have reasons to think that no asym hands will come out shortly or, it's the same, that many previous asym hands got the Player side winning.
We can't get a shoe featuring 20 or zero asym hands, anyway naturals and standing points must show up at a value well exceeding 1/3 of the total hands dealt. Those situations are the math advantaged hands, even though a favorite standing 7 will lose to a natural 8 or to a miracle 6 falling to the opposite underdog 2 point.
How much those "unfortunate" (or mistakenly considered "lucky") events will impact over the long run? I guess at a lesser degree than what the most likely course is going to take along the way. 

Therefore a valuable betting method must be set up onto two different levels: math advantaged situations or card distributions so polarized that even the Player side may be slight advantaged.

We see that it's more difficult to spot or concentrate real Banker advantaged situations as the asym general probability is 8.4%, whereas Player side can be underdog just on those asym hands.
Of course Player side never get the astounding math advantage of 15.86% working on its asym hands, even knowing that the asym impact is a well finite factor.

Example.

We set up a mechanical plan dictating to bet one time Player side after any asym hand was produced. If a couple of asym hands were formed we'll stop the betting (that is we are trying to isolate asym math advantaged hands)
On average we'll bet 6 or 7 times, we will be hugely underdog only when consecutive asym hands will be formed. In the remaining cases we are at least playing a 0.5 no negative edge game (as linear card counting is a bighornshit).
Naturally itlr we'll expect to get the same asym-sym and asym-asym ratios, yet the asym/total hands dealt ratio is quite restricted.
And altogether naturally is that post asym hands situations are 50% dealt but one side is payed 0.95:1 and the other one 1:1.

Our new random walk wagering 6 or 7 hands per shoe is moving around two very different probabilities: the first probability is to get or not get another strong math advantaged situation favoring B, second probability is surely set up around the 0.5 value. It's the simplest example of 'probability after events' feature.
Think that we can take into account what happens after two or more hands after an asym hand happened or after a couple of consecutive asym hands, thus building infinite random walks.

Now it's the actual card distribution that plays the decisive role as symmetricity cannot exist at all at baccarat.

The idea to restrict the succession of outcomes within simple categories working under specific circumstances tries to approximate at best the actual card distribution.
Imo and according to our long term data, 1-2, 1-3 and B2-B1/B3 are among the best indicators of the actual card distribution.

as.

A) 1-2

1-2 is the state where key cards are arranged quite proportionally along a given section of the shoe.
It's impossible or very very very very unlikely that a common B/P registration of such state can last for the entire shoe or most part of the shoe. A luxury offered by utlizing other form of random walks.
Obviously itlr 1-2 works better on P side than on B side.
Not surprisingly when the 1-2 state seem to be silent at the start of the shoe, the remaning portions of the shoe more often than not contain short 1-2 states. Naturally all depends about how good or bad are shuffled the cards.

B) 1-3

1-3 state is less likely to provide very long patterns and that's quite curious as given 1 as a costant, 2 should be equal to 3. Moreover 3 consumes more space than 2s thus increasing the probability to get an entire shoe or most part of it featuring this 1-3 state. 
In some way we could infer that a proportional key cards third-level arrangement on both sides is more unlikely, unless B keep forming 3s and P shows up in singles. Or, of course, that few 3s are interleft with many singles. But this being the case, we should just focus our betting on singles without risking the second bet.

C) 2-3

This state is like betting toward getting consecutive streaks, period.
In reality many shoes produce long consecutive streaks of any lenght, of course if I've omitted this state in my plans there's a reason. And the main reason is variance.
Differently to the above states, this one-level state cannot get a backup plan: either we win or we lose. And imo and according to my data there's no valid selection to try to get a kind of advantage as we can only hope that cards are clustered in one way and just one time each.

Imo the value of such state should be indirectly taken. More often than not long 2-3 situations endorse the subsequent probability of A and B states.

D) B2/B1-B3

This state starts its course after a precise condition will be met, that is a B double apparition.
Itlr any B double is the product of an asymmetrical value, even at a slight degree.
That is a small percentage of every B double is asymmetrically placed differently to what happens at Player side where such force must act oppositely.
Now we want to challenge the actual card distribution to get within a couple of hands either a quite proportional key cards distribution (Player side apparition) or, whether our previous attempt failed, a relatively shifted key cards distribution or asym situation favoring the same winning side (Banker).
In a word we're challenging the shoe to form another "same" situation just happened on that B side. And we can do this two times (betting after two B consecutive doubles), three times and so on.

In normal conditions and naturally itlr, this plan doesn't guarantee us a profit (and the same is true about the other plans) but the dispersion values calculated upon this plan are well lower than what we have been taught for years, that is that no matter which spot we select to bet into, probabilties will remain the same.

Actually tests made on LIVE shoes suggest that B doubles quality and B doubles consecutiveness produced at the start of a shoe can be a valuable trigger to evaluate the probability to get or not more B doubles.

Next time we'll see "albalaha way" how to manage real live unfortunate shoes that seem to disrupt those plans.

as.

Please forgive my honest 2 cent opinion here. I want to say it as honestly as I am allowed to say it here-

To win baccarat consistently or to make a living in playing baccarat, there are many many factors associated with it. Yes, discipline, patience, tutelage of the game, determination and the will, sufficiently allotted bankroll and bet selection along with the right progression is a must. For me after 17 years of learning and playing the game with real money, the most important factor in winning the game consistently is bet selection and progression. They must be equally utilized.

Know when to walk out and when to walk in.

No amount of computer testing and or practice based on the theoretical approaches will be accomplished without hands on at the table playing with your hard earned money. I don?t want any new potential or prospect players to think that it is a piece of cake to make a living playing baccarat or to win the money consistently. There is no holy grail period.

Please read, learn and practice with  real money at the table. Win or lose, strive to improve it from there.

My playing approaches are random vs random based on mathematical equations on progression. I set up my winning target and stop loss per session. Am I winning all the time, hell no. I win consistently and more than I lose, yes!

Please stay well and safe. I wish you, my fellow players, all the best..

Alrelax: please be kind to close my user account. You are welcome to communicate with me by other means because you my contact information.

Best regards,
Ted

So very very very true to the millionth power, past the School of Hard Knocks over the Wild Blue Yonder and past all the other agonizing metaphors, that exist in the world of Baccarat I quote the following:

"Know when to walk out and when to walk in.

No amount of computer testing and or practice based on the theoretical approaches will be accomplished without hands on at the table playing with your hard earned money. I don't want any new potential or prospect players to think that it is a piece of cake to make a living playing baccarat or to win the money consistently. There is no holy grail period.

Please read, learn and practice with  real money at the table. Win or lose, strive to improve it from there."

Thanks for your contributes, but I'm afraid people want to know precisely the situations when to ride in and when to jump out of the shoe they're playing at.
Baccarat could be a form of both art and science, I still prefer the latter form as most players do not have the proper experience to learn the "when" and the "how" as Al or others can do.

If B2/B1-B3 plan could get us possible valuable hints to consider bac outcomes, in order to spot some long term features let's take the asym counterpart, that is the P2/P1-P3 opposite situation.

Again let's extract 10 shoes randomly from a live shoes data.

1) 2-1-1-2-2-1

2) 1-1-1

3) 2-1-1-1

4) 1

5) 1-2

6) 1-1-1

7) 1-1-3*

1-1-1

9) 1-1-1

10) 1-1-2-3-2-1

Obviously we could infer that P consecutive doubles must show up by higher percentages than B doubles. After all B2<B3 and P2>P3 itlr.
True, but at the same time P1>P2, so now we get two exact opposite forces acting after each P double apparition. Knowing of course that P2>P3 so lowering the probability of success of second bets made on such P plan.

It's the same conclusion made on B doubles: from one part something is "generally" more likely (B3>B2) and something will be "actually" more likely (B1>B2+), now considering Player side respectively reversed by P1>P2 (general) and P3>P2 (actual) values.

It's not a coincidence that we need a couple of "homogeneous" outcomes happening at the same side to be considered as triggers.

Itlr B-B is an asymmetrical situation as well as is a P-P pattern.
But a perfect symmetrical card distribution cannot happen by any means, especially whether bac rules dictate otherwise. Even though this kind of asymmetricity seem to produce "symmetrical" results, we should know that it's impossible to get perfect sym outcomes for long, for the simple reason that at baccarat nothing is symmetrical or at least that a mistakenly sym perceived world cannot last for long.

as.