Hi AsymBacGuy
Thx for CR examples. 

"...Next time we'll see many other spots getting an astounding probability to appear, no matter how the s.tu.pi.d math experts keep to state. ..."

Looking forward to the next post



Continued Success,

Hi KFB!

There are several ways to register results and, more importantly, to dispute the real randomness of the outcomes.

So far we've seen registrations made on BP or AB lenght sequences, maybe restricted within more likely situations.

Now we take the issue from another perspective, that is the lenght of either singled or streaky occurences happening along any shoe.

We already know that Big Road is full of bighorn.stuff, the maximum example of results too much sensitive of weird situations that cannot help us by a sufficient degree of precision.
In this post we'll talk about cockroach road (cr).

Preface

Any common derived road is made upon a mechanical comparison of what happened in the past (ties ignored) by different intervals, the original source being the same BP sequence.
We know for sure that when talking about cr successions, long live baccarat data present different features than long live roulette data.
In the former class B>P but red=blue whereas at roulette N=R, O=E and H=L, yet red=blue.

Therefore the red and blue spots number is equally distributed at both games despite of the different source's nature (asymmetrical at baccarat, symmetrical at roulette).

This is a kind of paradox, as itlr asymmetrical games must get different results than symmetrical games,  no matter how deep we would classify the outcomes; it's like that when something happened at baccarat will temporarily affect future results way more than a perfect independent game as roulette will do.

Cr single and streak consecutive results classification

Say the cr distribution looks as

r
b
rr
bbbb
rrrrrrr
b
rr
b
r
b
rrrr
bb
r
bbbb
rr
bbbbb...

translating into a 2,3,1,1,3,2,1,3... succession.

We can't give a lesser fk whether itlr 1s, 2s and 3s consecutive single or streak successions will get the same proportional amount than expected, actually it's what we should expect.
What it should really interest us is the gap between same values appearance at the same fkng shoe we're playing at, being the most reliable parameter to look for, knowing that single and streak successions must be somewhat dependent from the actual shoe distribution.

Cr is the best common derived road to look for as being strong polarized to get this or that at some spots of the shoe.

In addition notice that playing toward 1s, 2s or 3s gaps doesn't mean to chase a preordered scheme as the actual shoe is addressing our betting plan. Moreover, such numbers aren't polarized to get a given outcome as a couple of three (or more) singles in a row must be considered the same as a couple or three (or more) streaks in a row, no matter how's their lenght.

If you test your live shoes, you'll soon see that there's a constant relationship between a previous sequence of some lenght and the probability to get a given outcome on the next results.

When a pattern getting dishomogeneous features taken at either both opposite ways doesn't come out at an asymmetrical and poor randomly distributed game, probabilities dictate that more often than not the state tends to remain more silent than average.

I'll get more detailed info in a couple of days.

In the meanwhile check out the lenght of consecutive single and streak r and b spots happening at cr per each shoe.

Remember that 1=1, 2=2, but 3 or 25 or more must be still considered as 3.

as.

Examples.

Aria casino, LV, july 2017

Cr was:

bbb
r
bb
rrrr
bb
r
b
r
bb
r
b
rr
b
rr
bb
r
bbb
r
b
rr
b
r
b
rr
bbb
rrrrrrr
bbbbb
rr
b
r
bb
rrrrrr
bb
rr
b

that is a 1,1,3,3,1,2,1,1,2,1,1,2,1,3,3,2,3  succession

easy shoe :-)

Another one taken randomly, CP casino, LV september 2017

cr:

rr
bbb
rr
b
rr
bbbbbbb
rrr
bb
r
bbbb
rr
b
r
b
r
rr
b
r
b
rrrrrrr
b
r
b
r
bbb
r
b
rrr
bbb
rrr
bb

that is a 3,1,3,1,2,3,1,3,1,3,1,2,4 sequence

or this one, Aria casino, july 2017

cr:

bb
r
bb
r
bbb
r
bbb
r
bbbbbb
r
bbb
r
b
rt
bbbb
r
b
rrr
bb
r
b
r
bbbb
rrr
bb
r
bb
r
bbbb
r
b
rrrr
bb
rr

that is a 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,3,1,2,2,3,3,1,1,1,1,2,3 sequence

Finally an European casino surprisingly dealing 8-deck shoes (we needed a manual registration to convert the BR into the three common d.r.'s:

rr
bbb
r
bbb
rrrr
b
r
b
rr
bbb
r
b
rr
bbbb
rrr
bbb
rrr
b
rrr
b
r
b
rrr
bbbb
r
bbbb
rr
bbbb
rrrrrr
b

that is a 2,1,2,3,2,2,3,1,1,3,2,1,3 sequence

Easy way to predict what more likely should come next, huh?

as.   



 

Take this one

Montecarlo casino, Principality of Monaco, may 2018 (8-deck shoe played very short)

bbb
r
bbbb
rrrrr
bbb
r
bbbb
rrr
bbbbbbb
rrr
bbbbbb
rrr
bbb
rr
b
r
b
rr
bbb

that is a 1,1,3,1,3,3,(2)...

At this shoe casino got almost every penny of the super high stakes playing there but us. I guess nobody of you would have crippled by wagering at this shoe. Providing to look for situations not belonging to the actual big road.

as.

So, how many of the above three situations can be silent for long?
What about a possible probability enhancement when the same class had appeared one time and vice versa?

We know that itlr cr triples will proportionally prevail over singles/doubles wholly considered.

Yes, it happens that some shoes will produce very few 3+s with a lot of singles/doubles, meaning that those shoes are formed by a high degree of key card dilution, a quite rare circumstance to happen.

Since 1s are pretty common anyway, we should concentrate our attention about 2s and 3s distribution.
In this way we're just placing one bet after a 2 apparition.
Either a 2 remains 2 or jumps to a 3.

Some shoes will present a long sequence of 2s? No problem, as we're placing a bet (fictionally or for real) after a 3 happened.
There will be several classes of gaps between a 3 and another 3 apparition.

0= no one 2 is interpolated between two 3s

1= one 2 happened between two 3s

2= two 2s happened between two 2s.

3= three or more 2s happened between two 3s

Of course we are more concerned with the first three possibilities, being the vast majority of situations.

This simple plan will put into the toilet the common general assumption that every bet will cross a 50% (or so) probability to succeed or fail.

In some way 3s are our watchdog to know how good or bad is shuffled the shoe we're playing at, moreover instructing us what will be the more likely gap between them.

In fact and at least at non random live shoes (the vast majority of them), after a 3 pattern showed up there's a slight propensity to get another 3 pattern quite soon (2s remain the trigger to start the betting).

Such spots will be so balanced along the way, especially by fictionally waiting a slight deviation on negative side of one or more gap classes, that you'll feel pity for casinos.

Be greedy, set up a proper bankroll and extract more money than you can before this fkng SARSCov2 will close again our offices.

as.

Mathematicians will say that no matter which spot we are taking as 'trigger', every bet will be EV negative.

A total fkng s.t.up.id bighornsh.it. A confirmation that math experts cannot get a single opportunity to beat baccarat.

At every baccarat shoe dealt, we're not going to bet fkng general probabilities.
Instead we are betting the actual card distribution compared to general values and the actual card distribution cannot be totally insensitive from the previous patterns. By any fkng means.

Compliance with the shoe we're playing at

The horizontal single/streak registration will get rid of the long B and P streaks, that is a B or P streak is a streak no matter how is long. Period.

On the other end, singles remain singles both in vertical and horizontal registrations.

Of course the 1,2 and 3s single/streak consecutiveness will move around more likely general patterns, but it's the actual presentation of some categories that will enhance the probability to get this or that.

For example, whenever a 3+ sequence of any nature will happen at the start of the shoe (cr road), odds are that another 3+ sequence will happen very shortly at the same shoe, naturally those patterns must be considered after a 2 trigger pattern got place.
Taken the issue by another perspective, as long as no 3+ patterns hadn't show up, 1s and 2s tend to form longer clusters than expected, many times not crossing a proportional negative 3s part canceling the profits we got before.

Since it's virtually impossibile to get a proper EV+ compliance at every shoe played (no matter how fast a 3 will happen along a given shoe), some bac pros will take into account how many gaps will come between 3s (taking as negative as any 2 appearance happening after a 3).

As sayed before and taking as neutral 1s, the probability to get 0 vs superior patterns or 1 vs superior patterns or 2 vs superior pattenrs will be so quite balanced that even a kind of strong progression will get the best of it.

Translating, 3-3 or 3-2-3 or 3-2-2-3 cr patterns will get astounding low sd values than what a binomial proposition will dictate.

Notice that we can't hope to get this propensity acting for the entire shoe, we just need to select what happens after the first 3 happened at the actual shoe.

Itlr our live shoes data instruct us to know that the probability to get back to back higher than 0 or 1 '3s' gaps for long at cr road is almost not existent, providing at least a 3 happened at the first half of the shoe.

Well, if things tend to come out in this way at cr road, what about the two other common derived roads?

More importantly what about a cumulative betting plan taking into account ALL common derived roads as a whole?

Next time we'll discuss this.

as.

I haven't been keeping up with this thread ....but as far as finding statistical anomalies in a bac shoe.....   I think you have to also consider the practicality of the method.........if the anomalies only present themselves for 2   or 3 or 4 or 5 bets a shoe, you have to consider if it is worthwhile to sit at a table for an hour or an hour and a half waiting for those situations to appear for a bet while inhaling about three packs of second hand cigarette smoke (smoking will be reinstated after Covid......casinos do not care if the dealers and employees and customers get  sick from the smoke....all they care about is if they can make more profit with a smoking casino versus a non smoking casino )

Also,  in an 80 hand shoe of baccarat, do you think you can sit there for an hour and a half and only bet 3 or 4 hands without the pit boss or dealer saying something?

Best place to play the method is at a casino with Stadium baccarat, where it is all electronic betting with a live dealer and you can sit out as many hands as you feel like.

Hi 8or9!

Yep, your considerations make a lot of sense but think that the very few people making money (a lot of it) at this game are waiting rare profitable opportunities to show up.

Baccarat should be considered as black jack: hours of boredom (negative counts) with rare peaks of good situations (positive counts).

Here we play the average card distribution biased by a kind of improper shuffle and of course the average edge is way higher than at bj positive counting spots.

Nothing prevent us to play 'for fun' at a standard unit 10-20 or more times lower than at key hands.
Alrelax made a lot of posts about his 'turning points' topic involving more hands to play.

You're right: Stadium baccarat is the best place to adopt this strategy. Nobody gives a fk about our play.

After all having fun and/or getting a good time and consistently winning is anthitetical by definition.

Take care

as.

Quite interesting but not so surprising at all is to realize that propensities happening at cr road (there are many, I've made just the 'easiest' example) don't show up at the other d.r.'s.
In a sense we got a direct 'falsification of the hypothesis' so appreciated by scientists.

Thus if the appearance of a given pattern registered by a given pace will slightly promote the appearance of another pattern formed by the same qualities, once we change the pace of registration this propensity must change too.
This reasoning totally collide with the 'independent nature of the outcomes' so beloved by mathematicians.
We are talking about patterns and not about rank cards, of course.

And actually the propensity we've investigated so far neutralizes at another road and tend to invert its features at the remaining third d.r.

Now the question is: are we going to get a greater propensity of some kind when we're trying to merge the common three d.r.'s together?

The answer is YES.

At first glance this should constitute a paradox: when proper situations arise and taking into account the issue discussed so far A>B at one road, A=B at another road and B>A at the final road.
What could be interesting is that we cannot have means to know the 'intensity' of the diverse propensities happening along any shoe.

It's the average global intensity that gives us precious hints about when more likely patterns are going to occur and as you well know we just need to be one step ahead per every playable shoe.

So we must find a cumulative random walk capable to get spots accounting values overcoming the opposite part. Meaning we're estimating quite carefully the actual card distribution.

Maybe some examples will help.
Next time.

as. 

I have some great great examples from last night of some shoes with actual pictures of the scoreboard. 

I will post them when I get a chance to make the notes and do some editing. I'll try to get it done tonight.

Ok, while waiting for Al shoes I'll make a simpler and more manageable example about the last issue.

Forget derived road, random walks and whatever and consider Big Road always in term of singles and streaks gaps.
Our aim will be to get just one statistical situation, that is getting a 3 (instead of a double) at the start of the shoe, then betting just one time whenever a 3 or any 3 had come out.
In a word, 1s do not interest us, we are still opposing 3s to 2s but now and differently to the above derived roads plan, here we're adding the very first 2 or 3 appearance just to make things faster (of course making more gambling in our plan).

Therefore positive spots will be when at the start of any shoe a 3 will come out instead of a 2, then we need a 3 appearance to bet toward a consecutive 3 (as opposde to a 2); any 3-2-3 or 3-2-2-3 o any other longer 3 gap will be considered as a loser.

I've stressed about the importance to not consider Big Road as a direct reliable source of results, anyway and no matter how will be the edge by wagering this plan (as being too diluted, that is needing too many shoes to observe), we decide to play a more risky plan by adopting a progression.

We choose the Jae's progression, Oscar grind, that is staying at the same betting level unless a win come out then if we're losing, we raise the bet by one unit until we've recovered the deficit.

So a x-3 sequence happening at the start of the shoe is a win and any 3-3 pattern (without 2s in the middle) is a win too.

Anything different from that is a loss, that is when a 2 come out at the start of the shoe and/or a 3 is not followed by another 3 but by a 2.

Again 1s are considered neutral, our triggers come whenever two homogeneous situations (singles or streaks) had come out.

My data suggest that the probability to get long losing situations without getting a proper winning patterns is not existent at all. Especially if we stop the betting plan at 0 level.

The fact that I've added the very first pattern happening without previous info, makes impossible to arrange cards to get more 2s than 3s as cards are burnt accordingly to the first exposed card quality.

In a word the 0/S ratio (0= first 3 and/or consecutive 3s; S=superior gaps) are moving around a strong balanced world (very low sd values), no matter how whimsically are shuffled the cards.
That's because S spots are less likely itlr.

There are many additional factors to increase our already strong probability of success, we'll see them next week.

as.

Thx AsymBacGuy
Youre doing a great job detailing the CR. I appreciate your thorough explanations/then also giving us examples to make your points.


One sentence Im not 100% comprehending  and need a little extra clarification on:

"...In a word the 0/S ratio (0= first 3 and/or consecutive 3s; S=superior gaps) are moving around a strong balanced world (very low sd values), no matter how whimsically are shuffled the cards.   ..."

Can you give an example for the words in BOLD. Thank you.


Continued Success,

Mathematicians could not succeed to beat baccarat due to inability to think rationally apart from thinking straight mathematically. No amount of mathematical progression be it arithmetic or geometric could beat the billions of probability baccarat or any other game of chance could offer in terms of Wins and losses. One size fits all type things could not work. I read an interview of Prof Thorpe who did beat blackjack. He said even if you have a billion chips you can not guarantee win. He wasn't wrong or Einstein wasn't wrong in their conclusions. Simple math has nothing to offer in beating a game of chance without having infinite chips. Martingale or Fibonacci or Labouchere can beat any session mathematically but the amount of chips they might seek in the most adverse periods make them impractical to be used. However, there are number of ways this problem could be solved. I have created a few money management that can survive even 5 SD below mean without seeking thousands of chips and win thereafter in average times, without seeking clumping wins. Anybody can achieve that thinking logically too, apart from thinking mathematically.   

Hi Albalaha

"...I have created a few money management that can survive even 5 SD below mean without seeking thousands of chips and win thereafter in average times, without seeking clumping wins...."   


I have created a few money management that can survive even 5 SD below mean
     I believe you as I know u have been working diligently on this or related project for many years.Congrats.


that can survive even 5 SD below mean without seeking thousands of chips and win thereafter in average times, without seeking clumping wins...."  

     Q1: Does your method win proportionally more for surviving additional SDs of - Variance? e.g., Would your net earnings for surviving a -5SD shoe vs a -3SD shoe be 5:3 ?  or other ratio?   

     Q2: Another way of viewing it since you do a negpro: Im obviously guessing one needs a proportionality of more chips to survive a -5SD shoe vs lets say a -3SD shoe (e.g., Chips needed for -5sd=50 and chips needed for -3sd=30,...etc or whatever ___________) ?
     So my question: Is this(#chips required) somewhat proportional and a f(x) of the number of -SD one chooses to survive. If yes give an example.



Thx/continued success.

QuoteQ1: Does your method win proportionally more for surviving additional SDs of - Variance? e.g., Would your net earnings for surviving a -5SD shoe vs a -3SD shoe be 5:3 ?  or other ratio?   

Answer:It could be either way. It all depends upon the stretch of the ugly phase as well as its shape.

    Q2: Another way of viewing it since you do a negpro: Im obviously guessing one needs a proportionality of more chips to survive a -5SD shoe vs lets say a -3SD shoe (e.g., Chips needed for -5sd=50 and chips needed for -3sd=30,...etc or whatever ___________) ?
     So my question: Is this(#chips required) somewhat proportional and a f(x) of the number of -SD one chooses to survive. If yes give an example.

Answer: Definitely. Chips required to survive 5 SD has to be more than that is required to handle 3 SD. What kind of question is this? Fuel required to go 100Kms has to be more than that for going 10Kms but again as in the case of car moving on a busy street and on a highway things vary.