Quote from: KungFuBac on August 11, 2021, 04:43:23 PM
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,

Hi KFB!!

Obviously the 3 pattern must affect in some way the following patterns belonging to certain categories, it's the probability after events and place selection probability working at full degree.
Thus we must set up the 'limiting values of relative frequency' of certain outcomes capable to get results more balanced or, even better, more oriented to get a back to back situation.

In a word, setting up multiple random walks more likely to form low variance lines.

We've seen that the small road, for example, can't get this feature and there's a reason for that.
Say 2 is a too low parameter and 3 is a too high parameter to look for low variance successions.

Under normal circumstances, Big road cannot give us a strategy to win by flat betting, nonetheless the 3 vs 2 'fighting'  provides interesting low sd values.

The fact that we're adding to our successions the first 3 appearance (as opposed as to any 2) represents a kind of gambling move, yet it's a move that tends to get more power to those 0-0-0-0...sequences more likely than S-S-S-S... ones.

That's because our live shoes data have shown that after a 0 (very first 3 appearance) more shoes will present a univocal 0-0-0...sequence than after any S situation happening at the start of the shoe.

Nobody here wants to disprove the total 3/2 mere patterns ratio, it remains the same. We just put some emphasis about the fact that the 3/2 distribution on certain random walks won't be so proportionally placed as mathematicians keep to state.

Of course whenever a 3 didn't happen at various stages of the shoe (especially at the very first spot), we may deduce that 3s are less likely than opposite 2s.
Not a sufficient reason to bet toward 2s...

After all 3s move the balancement 3/2 ratio acting at every shoe dealt toward one side and at measurable levels as at some random walks they are able to shift the future probability.

Since 3s can be accounted as three or more singles in a row AND/OR three or more streaks in a row and knowing that the average card distribution can't be proportionally placed along the vast majority of the shoes dealt (especially when cards are badly shuffled), the probability to get a proportional amount of 2s as opposed as 3s for long is not existent.
Providing to set up a limit of the actual distribution and we've seen that 0s vs Ss is the simplest way to get an edge.

as.

Let's make an example.

The actual shoe portion we're observing is:

B
PP
B
PPPPPP
BB
PPPP
B
PP
B
P
BBBBB
PPP
BB
P
B
PPPPP
B
PP
B
P
B
P...

That is a 1-1-1-3-1-1-2-3-2-1-1-1-3... sequence

This shoe will be classified as a 0-1-1 succession.

First outcome is a 3 and not a 2, then it's a 0 number; then we got a one '3 gap' (1) and again another one '3 gap' number (1).

No matter how things went at B/P registrations, we got a 0-1-1 succession.

Itlr 0s as opposed to S spots (1 or higher numbers) will get a very low variance to happen as cards cannot be distributed for long to get precise cutoff points stopping at the 2 level.
This thing (multiple 2s in a row) can happen more likely when the first outcome is not a 3 (1s being considered as neutral) for the reasons illustrated above.

Even considering the worst random walk we can register (Big Road) this BS could be so reliable that shoes forming a 3 at the very start of the shoe or a back to back 3 pattern (1s ignored) will get for the patient player astounding low variance values up to the point that casinos will be our ATM.

Not mentioning that whenever a 3 fails to show up, more often than not we'll get an edge no matter what.
And we'll see this topic tomorrow.

as.

Thx AsymBacGuy for answering my question.

You have many excellent thoughts.


"...Thus we must set up the 'limiting values of relative frequency' of certain outcomes capable to get results more balanced or, even better, more oriented to get a back to back situation.

In a word, setting up multiple random walks more likely to form low variance lines.
..."


Continued Success,

Thanks a lot KFB!

There's an advantage of taking into account 'back to back' situations as multiple different patterns will merge toward one of the three (or more) categories.

For example:

BB
P
BBB
P
BB

is 1-1-1-1...

or

B
P
B
P
B   is just a 3

as well as

BB
PPP
BBBB
PP
BB

(another 3)

Thus every shoe will be formed by a succession of numbers where there's a kind of relationship between numbers of different values, shoe per shoe.

We will get several classes of number clusters that by no means are getting the high variance typical of 'binomial' independent propositions.
Now we could serenely give a fk about the Banker propensity as acting too lightly here and there.
It's the average card distribution that counts (especially key cards) and we know that things vary enormously between shoes.

For example, say we want to track 1-1 patterns at a given random walk.
It doesn't take to be a rocket scientist to see that 1s tend to be more clustered than isolated as a kind of steady unbalancement must come out sooner or later.

Cards can produce whatever whimsical results somebody will think of, but 7s, 8s and 9s remain the main forces orienting the results.

Moreover when a given number category tend to be silent for a fair percentage of the shoe, generally odds that it'll 'catch up' in the next portions of it are lower than expected.
That's why we need to see at least one category to show up before starting the actual classification. (An exception was made about the very first 3 as opposed to 2).

Under selected situations happening at certain random walks, 3s variance will be so low that you'll be  bored to play and win at baccarat. 
But before thinking to quit baccarat consider to make investments as buying a Lamborghini Huracan or one of the Andre Agassi houses at Spanish Hills, Las Vegas ($2.2 M is the price but maybe it's already sold).

as.

Nope you're fortunate, Agassi's house is still on sale...

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/4944-Spanish-Heights-Dr-Las-Vegas-NV-89148/7148468_zpid/

as.

Linked events

Best way to assess a possible advantage is by measuring various and different opposite situations, knowing their general probability to happen and comparing it with the specific shoe we're playing at.

By doing this several times we'll be able to get an idea whether our selection will be either right (EV+) or random (EV-).
Of course the concept of 'bad selection' besides a random selection can't be applied as it simply doesn't exist at all. 

Since the baccarat literature has taught us that no possible bets will be EV+, we're forced to think (or to hope) that 'random' world is not so randomly placed, thus that some events happening at any given shoe are somewhat linked to others.

The probability to get a linked event or not is naturally following the general laws, obviously some events are more likey than others (2-2 is more likely than  3-3, for example), the important thing to remember, imo, is that the actual card distribution tends to make certain patterns more sensitive to the previous distribution up to a point.

Since we do not want to fall into the realm of variance and knowing that best bac players like to bet just very few spots along any playable shoe, we start to consider the very first 'linked event' coming out along each shoe.
Then we'll set up our strategy accordingly.

Have to run, more on that later.

as.

Simply put, most of the times the first patterns of the shoe are a reliable indicator of what will be more likely to happen along that shoe.
Especially whether we're taking into account the very first back to back pattern class considered by various random walks.

Since I never ever tried to sell anything in years (probably I should, lol) you can give me a bit of credit of what I'm saying here.

Naturally patterns shape remains the main indicator to look for, nonetheless key card distribution is a powerful enhancer working for us.
And for that matter, even ties are playing a fair role on that. In some way shoes particularly rich of ties at the start should be considered as unplayable ones.

Shoe composition affecting dfferent random walks

Virtually speaking the probability that every shoe will not present a back to back same pattern on different random walks is zero.
I mean that at some point 1 must be followed by another 1 (2s and 3s as enemies), 2 by another 2 (3s as enemy) and 3 by another 3 (2s as enemy).
Naturally many 'colliding' spots will arise along the way, meaning that we do not know what will be the favorite line to get a back to back same pattern situation.

The single/streak registration I've suggested will help us to spot the situations where A should be more likely than B after a given 'delayed' back to back time elapsed.

For example, at byb road, the 1-2 back to back probability will be quite enhanced at various stages as back to back 3s are less common to happen than at cr road. Especiallly if no 3s happened in the first stages of that shoe.

Moreover and regardless of the road considered, what didn't happen tend to remain more silent than average, as the alternating shape of some outcomes will be the least probability to happen.

Up to some values, of course.

Say we are betting a given line that 1 remains 1, 2 remains 2 (instead of 3) and 3 remains 3 (instead of going back to 2).

If per any value considered at each random walk accounted we'll wait a 2 or 3 negative deviation, our bets  will get a positive expectation as heterogeneous opposite patterns can't last for long.

On the other end, back to back same patterns cannot stop at the first valuable level for long, many times surpassing hugely the simple first obstacle.

- 1s fight to every other pattern different to 1 (2s and 3s)
- 2s fight against 3s
- 3s fight against 2s.

as. 

Here is one from yesterday.  Lord O Lord did a few of us hit the casino hard, the rest lost big time.  No one believed what was happening was happening.  I took the picture and could not take it another one after the players went another 15 or so to about 3 more bankers.  SO what you see here, the next hand was 1 banker, than about another 7 players and then 2 more bankers.  Then another 8 players.  So it wound up being 26 players to 5 bankers. 

Almost every single player hand that was not a natural, was something that brought the players up to either 7-8 or 9 each time.  Like if the banker had a 7 on the first 2 cards and the players had say a 1, the players would flop a 7 or 8 for their 3rd card.  If something like that did not happen, then the players would win by 1.  Like the Players would have 0 and the banker had 2, the players would draw a 3 and the bankers would flop a 10/face for their 3rd card. Half of the players naturals would be a 9 and the banker would have a natural 8 each time. 

This is a pretty good example where it's quite difficult to lose more than a couple of times (at worst), letting the predominant counterpart to get 'endless' wins. Especially under the card features Al has pointed out.

A further proof that baccarat is a strict situational game.

Are those events so rare to show up?
Who gives a s.h.it, casinos must pay us no matter what.
 

as.




 

Thx AsymBacGuy
Good posts/ several good points in the last couple essays--I like that you also take time in your posts to give specific examples.

"...Virtually speaking the probability that every shoe will not present a back to back same pattern on different random walks is zero.
I mean that at some point 1 must be followed by another 1 (2s and 3s as enemies), 2 by another 2 (3s as enemy) and 3 by another 3 (2s as enemy).


re: 3 by another 3 (2s as enemy).[/b]
     Q: Is your example referring to  (BBB: P BBB)  or  (BBB:PPP)

Thanks

Hi alrelax
Thx for TR  /toteboard pic

re: Reply #397

Gravy train shoe for sure.

On the first two P columns did you do your oft mentioned pospros (1326 or the 1248 16,1...etc, or other?), and did u continue with  your pospro through the 5th/6th hits on the first two P column runs? 
How or did these initial P runs affect your wagering approach when the even better P-runs presented in P columns 3/4???

Without knowing anything else I likely would NOT have continued with my largest wager on Player C1 hit # 5th/6th, however, after the first two P colum runs the 3rd/4th P runs that showed immediately following your toteboard pic,  would have been difficult to stay off. Especially with such precedence showing at that strength level.
....just hypothesizing as maybe dif opinion if more info, ..who knows as kinda the ol hindsight always converges toward 20/20.

*I know its easy to monday-morning quarterback a game like this


Thx again/continued success,

I will try my best to recall the moves, it helps me and hopefully will help you/others in your pursuits of this game.  I can recall most of it as it is fresh.  So typing as I was thinking when I was at the table is what I am saying.

Gravy train shoe for sure. (Of course it was, but you understand the game in a live B&M especially when the players are playing the game receiving the cards, bending and peeling, blowing and erasing, etc.)

On the first two P columns did you do your oft mentioned pospros (1326 or the 1248 16,1...etc, or other?), and did u continue with  your pospro through the 5th/6th hits on the first two P column runs? (It was the beginning of the shoe and there was several negative aspects against us. One which is really a subject I brought up in the past numerous times and I should once again, was today's players in a B&M are really almost never all together, such as all agreeing on something or not wagering, etc.  Used to be, we almost all would agree, high five, feel good, pump it up, smack the casino attitude and keep it going.  I know!!!! One million zillion percent, all of that does not CHANGE the presentments coming out.  YES I know, but it stops the, "Well #2 is betting table max and I feel awkward and stupid if I lose my $500 on the opposite side, he has been winning and is on a roll" type of thought.  Because if he wins, then it turns out to be screw me, I should have followed and got on it, but if he lost, it turns out to be, screw me why I fell prey and did not really pump it up.  I hope you understand what I am saying here?  Also, the opposite bettors of today, they wait till the very last second and throw up a table min or super small wager against whatever the larger players are wagering.  And the last group of today's players are the, cutters.  Playing to cut.  I understand once again the CUT.  Streaks are not the only way to win, not at all.  Strong is Strong.  Streaks, cuts, chops, 1-2-3s, all of the patterns, I have written about it at length.  So years ago, we used to all be virtually on the same side in good situations, and we would only lose the LAST wager on whatever gravy train was being presented, 5 or 10 or 15 hands and then back to normal and individual wagering, etc.  ALL OF THAT IS HARDLY PRESENT TODAY.)

RE: Pro Progressive.  No.  And I kick myself, did not even think of it at the time.  I had one friend there, and we usually play together in the majority of the wagering.  However the others were mostly all banker types most all hands or they play for the cut.  It was vocal and it did influence me, I will admit as embarrassing as it is.  I will say now and I know if this happened mid shoe or even later, I would have killed it considerably larger.  Also, those 2 ties were both natural ties, so it was like, here comes the bankers side coming forth.  Pressed 2nd and third after ties, stayed on players.  Cut way down on the 5th player because of huge money on the banker side and my thought, too good to be true.  Then the player came out once again and I stayed on it and the natural came out for the banker and it was a N9 against a players B8.  I went for the players to come back after that N9 first banker and lost and the table once again smacked it hard.  Now everyone was on the banker even my friend.  I stayed on the player with a smaller wager.  And it was a natural and I pleaded with them to let's do an old school and rock n roll.  Everyone stuck banker.   I pumped it up but no where near what I should have.  Good money for sure, but not great.  The last two natural in the 2nd row started to change the table.  But their wagers were small, smaller than usual in every aspect.  I know the people pretty well.  They would be betting a few green chips instead of their normal black and purples, etc.  All of what was happening and being presented was highly unusual in so many ways, not typical but far and large.  However, it was there and it was as Asym said, the casino has to pay, etc.  But you have to be so neutral, open minded, forget the past, realize anything and everything happens if you play enough, etc., and all of that is not easy with a full table of people or playing by yourself.  I have seen almost full shoes of doubles, or chops, or streaks that run 18-19-20-28 and 29 to one side.  Yes, not often, but they all appear and what the heck difference does it matter if you can win thousands on every hand, hand after hand on say 15 chop chops, or 15 doubles or a streak of 15 players or bankers?  When you bring $50k of chips to the cashier the cashier does not ask, how did you win those--I have to know before I cash those? 

To me, maybe not yourselves, the hardest shoes to play are the 1s, 2s and 3s, a streak of 4 to 7 here and there and everything mixed in the way most shoes are, is super hard.  Because you wind up losing just as quick as you did winning the highest majority of the times.  Playing chops you lose on the second repeats, playing for 3 and cut or 4 and cut you lose when it repeats, playing for doubles you lose when it chops, playing for streaks you lose when it does not. So on and so forth.  That is the simple reason, no one strategy or system will ever work.
 



How or did these initial P runs affect your wagering approach when the even better P-runs presented in P columns 3/4???  Yes, the influence was there, but (and honestly trying my best to recreate the feelings and thoughts here as I was sitting at the table playing it.  In one sense, too good to be true.  In another, everyone once again was right back to the banker with larger wagers.  I stuck on the players but smaller amounts, I did switch up at least 2 times to the banker and then when back to the player I would wager even a smaller amount as usual, maybe a test amount?  It was the perfect scenario to do table max and if it one just keep doing it until you lose the last one, but that is armchair quarterbacking talk.  More so than the board or the presentments themselves, the people did influence me. I am not blaming them, I am merely telling you how I was influenced.

Without knowing anything else I likely would NOT have continued with my largest wager on Player C1 hit # 5th/6th, however, after the first two P colum runs the 3rd/4th P runs that showed immediately following your toteboard pic,  would have been difficult to stay off. Especially with such precedence showing at that strength level. (Well I guess the answer I laid out above pretty much covers this one also.  This shoe brings back the old school days of Atlantic City in the 80's and the 90's with no electronic scoreboards and where there were all back tables, 14 players, 7 each side, no back betting, 2 dealers sitting, 1 dealer standing, 2 floor people with one behind each of the 7 players each side, etc.  The casino would have been out hundreds of thousands of dollars, easily.  Because the whole table would have been together.  The thing about the old school days is almost all of us seldom left unless we won large.  I learned as I stated the past few years or so.  There is a time to win large and there are times when you just cannot win or get past even status.) 

....just hypothesizing as maybe dif opinion if more info, ..who knows as kinda the ol hindsight always converges toward 20/20. 

*I know its easy to monday-morning quarterback a game like this

Thx alrelax for taking the time for responding with a play-by-play. that's interesting as well as instructive.

"...Also, those 2 ties were both natural ties, so it was like, here comes the bankers side coming forth.  Pressed 2nd and third after ties, stayed on players.  Cut way down on the 5th player..."
     I agree the two ties in P c1 would have caused a pause(at least for me betting into a potential P run). Sometimes if I have pressed a wager several times into a significant pos progression I will set it aside and stay on the streak at my 1.0 base unit level when I have situation causing pause, then reinsert the pressed-up wager when my interpretation of current events has more clarity.
    Once we saw the P c2 run the P c3/Pc4 streaks would have been easier to justify betting for P to run upward to 4th-6th. Of course then our brains would have been thinking logically: "there's no way P is going to have four consec columns approaching 6iar,...etc" ... or at least my brain would have been trying to convince this isn't typical.

Again, this was from jump street.  Yes there are plenty of runs in the beginning, but not multiple columns such as this.

The others 'at times' see various insights that allow themselves to profit nicely and quickly.  That sticks with me when I play.  For example, a few nights prior to this one of the regular players there pointed out how every natural 8, every 3rd card total of 8, caused the subsequent hand to have the opposite side win. He pointed out around hand 30 with numerous situations.  Then the rest of the shoe held true to that situation.  Again, doesn't always happen, but when it does, it is there. 

*
"...To me, maybe not yourselves, the hardest shoes to play are the 1s, 2s and 3s, a streak of 4 to 7 here and there and everything mixed in the way most shoes are, is super hard...."
     Perfectly stated.


So in hindsight Im sure u played it about as efficiently as possible. The other players that bought in for the similar amounts as you (the players betting for B streaks or the cuts) would probably be happy to trade their ROI with yours.

The others bought in repeatedly bought in for multiple times my buy in each time they did.

Thx again/continued success

Quote from: KungFuBac on August 23, 2021, 05:16:58 AM
Thx AsymBacGuy
Good posts/ several good points in the last couple essays--I like that you also take time in your posts to give specific examples.

"...Virtually speaking the probability that every shoe will not present a back to back same pattern on different random walks is zero.
I mean that at some point 1 must be followed by another 1 (2s and 3s as enemies), 2 by another 2 (3s as enemy) and 3 by another 3 (2s as enemy).


re: 3 by another 3 (2s as enemy).[/b]
     Q: Is your example referring to  (BBB: P BBB)  or  (BBB:PPP)

Thanks

HI KFB!

Consider the BR succession of this shoe part:

B
PP
B
P
BBB
P
BBBB
PPP
B
PP
BB
PP
B
PPP
B
P
BB
PPPP
BB...

Under the 'runs' distribution we're talking about recently we'll have:

1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 1, 2, 3....

Now the gap of 1s vs everything else is: 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, (2).

The gap of 2s vs 3s is: 0, 1.

The gap of 3s vs 2s is: 1.

Remember we are just considering the big road.

as.