Thx AsymBacGuy--i like  your reply567 above/ as always I like how you also think outside the box.

Your proposal :
"For once pretend your goal is to lose faster than you can.
Besides wildly wagering side bets getting a very distant probability to happen, which moves would you take to accomplish this task?"

If I may interject a thought into  your fine thread.

This reminds me of an exercise I often propose to some of my daily bac comrades when we are in deep discussion about the game/ I'm trying to emphasize that although the laws of probability are always hovering I also want to point out how difficult it is to find a whole shoe with (0) 3 iar(in-a-row) win streaks from both P or  B. Meaning its atypical that we will not see a PPP and not see a BBB for a whole shoe.

So I tell them we will wager a $100USD bill  on each shoe(infinite # of shoes or until one of us run out of $100 Bills)  that u will not go the whole shoe failing to guess 3 iar INCORRECT (Meaning they are trying to guess wrong 3 iar) . E.G., So if they think the next outcome is probable to be P, then they would wager B.

My point being its extremely difficult to go one whole shoe and NOT guessing 3iar wrong (just as it is to NOT guess 3iar correct). They obviously will win some of the per shoe $100 wagers, however, I would eventually win more of their Benjamins.

I suggest since we have ~~84 total hands in an 8-deck shoe(they nod in agreement), I say "ok--im giving u 42 chips and the rules are:

A) you must wager all 42 individual chips on separate wagers B or P placement only(no ties or bonus wagers)

B) you must get these 42 wagers decisioned before the end of the shoe(one can't wait too long as one must get 42 wager completed from 82 hands  -tie hands, as the 42 must get decisioned).

C) They can place them any where they want within streak or not.

D) If they go the whole shoe without guessing 3iar wrong they win, if they do guess 3iar wrong then I win their $100 bill.


*My hypothesis is they would find almost identical results if I proposed the same exercise for them to try and guess 3iar CORRECT.

Any thoughts?  Any flaws  or loopholes to be exploited? Will I win more $100 bills than I lose? What if I made it about 2iar or 4iar??


Continued Success To All,

Very interesting points.
Hope to give you my comments very soon.
Cheers

as.

Yep, klw...

If it's very difficult to lose the entire bankroll in very few spots, the same thing applies to the probability to double or almost double the initial investment.

Without any shadow of doubt, bac probabilities move around 'clustered' patterns making way less likely 'hopping' A/B probabilities standing for long.
And of course the least 'clustered' pattern to look for is 1.
So many 'reversed' strategies come out to be exploitable.

Taking KFB points:

definitely shoes are more likely to produce polarized situations at either way and by whimsical different values, yet what happened at the start or intermediate portions of the shoe is a fair indicator of what will happen next.

It's true that B or P 3s eventually belong to a more likely 3s/1-2s ratio, nonetheless itlr we'll face a slight greater number of shoes poorer of 3s than richer of 3s.

Another example is considering doubles vs 3+s streaks at byb and/or sr.

as.

@KFB

*My hypothesis is they would find almost identical results if I proposed the same exercise for them to try and guess 3iar CORRECT.

With that large number of bets I'd agree.

Now let's pretend to make a similar challenge having this rules:

1- $100 are awarded if after the whole shoe is dealt, the number of CORRECT 3IAR decisions is higher than WRONG 3IAR decisions. Or vice versa.

2- Player must declare which side (Correct or Wrong) is taking before the shoe is dealt. Naturally he can't change along the way the side chosen at the start of the shoe. 

3- Only 3IAR or multiple of 3 spots at either C or W side are worth to be classified (6IAR, 9IAR, etc).

4- Obviously player must bet at least 3 'resolved' hands per shoe.

5- We just face player's action, so paying him whether he accomplished his task otherwise he pay us $100.

6- A final equal number of correct and wrong decisions are just a push, so no money is changing hands.

My comments on such 'challenge'.

Naturally it's more interesting to take the player's part first, maybe could help us in some way our real play.

a) The best scenario to look for is to be right on the very first (possible) 3IAR spot (1/0), we'll win right away $100 not giving a damn about the rest of the shoe.

It's true that if we were wrong at that first 3IAR spot and even more after two or more 3IARs, we'll have almost nothing to lose so desperately betting around every corner of the shoe hoping to get 'right' 3IAR situations balancing or surpassing the previous uncorrect ones.
Later I'll make an additional aggravating rule about that possible approach.

b) The idea to look just for 3IAR spots (no matter if losing or winning ones) should endorse the 'clustering' impact assessment, that is the 2/8 random walk probability to take the strongest univocal direction after 3 resolved hands are dealt.

c) If we are temporarily right or wrong for two consecutive hands, we'll have more reasons to focus about the pivotal third hand making us winners or losers for that sequence half of the time, in the remaining half we'll have to restart the process.
But before that, WW or LL spots are the most important to look for. 

d) Since we can't change the side declared at the start of the shoe and for the many times here mentioned difficulty to get a valuable 'balacing' factor acting along every shoe, let alone by values capable to get a kind of 'strong' opposite back-to-back strenght, we should evaluate with plenty of care about the room at our disposal offered by the actual shoe (and ties can only restrict such space).

Possible reflections about real play

Thinking about getting a final shoe award in terms of 3IAR right/wrong ratio is, imo, a fine aim to look for.
Especially if we are not forced to take at the start of the shoe the 'right' or wrong' side of the action influencing our strategy.
Thus meaning that in the vast majority of the times we need to be just one fkng point ahead to quit the shoe as winners.
Very rarely a player quits a shoe as winner after getting more losing 3IAR spots than the winning 3IAR counterpart. (And vice versa). 

After all along any shoe dealt there are no many possibilities to cross 3IAR winning or losing spots.
And whenever a 3IAR spot comes out, well it's 1 point ahead (or behind) vs its counterpart in a way or another, so favorite to ending up as predominant.
The idea that the next same category outcomes (in our example 3IAR spots) should be more likely balanced than not cannot be applied at baccarat.
Otherwise a simple progressive plan oriented to get a full or more likely partial balancement of the already results happened so far will wipe out every casino's bankroll.

Casinos make their fortunes about the probability that homogeneous things cannot stand for long and/or that 'balancement strategies' at various forms cannot work for players.
Math edge is just an additional booster to get our money but not the main reason we are separated from our money.

Think in the same way.

Try to survive at the heterogeneous situations (best by not betting at all) and consider the spots where a given 3IAR line will more likely get the best of it vs its counterpart.

as.

As KFB correctly stated, every shoe dealt in the universe will present 3IAR situations at one or either side of the medal (losing or winning).
The fact that we might 'jump' some hands doesn't change the issue, we're just interested about the probability to get a W (or L) followed by another W (L) and another W (L) even if we bet hands #5, #11 and #14.
An example is when we try to get three P doubles with no P 3s in between that obviously can't be bet consecutively. 

If the shoe would offer just up to 2IAR W or L situations, the game wouldn't exist.
For the same reason we know that such 2IAR at either side must, sooner or later, transform into 3IAR.

But differently to the hypothetical game I traced in my last post, along the shoe nothing prevent us to bet toward the side that seems to offer better probabilities to form a first positive 3IAR.

In some way and knowing that not all of the time we can wait for fresh shoes, our approach might work way better when we adopt a strategy linked with a 'reverse' strategy.
Easier sayed than done, but this is one of the few options to be astoundingly 'right' at 2-3 or more consecutive shoes without having a tremendous luck working for us.

The important thing to remember, imo, is to shift the 'strategy' ASAP, so not delaying it. This because particularly 'good' or 'bad' shoes are way less likely to happen.

After all, the number of 3IAR spots per shoe are roaming around an average value that rarely touch strong deviations.

OoOoO

Say we set up a 'random' betting strategy where the red or black nature of the first card dealt on the previous hand will dictate the side we'll bet next (for real or fictionally) and we register the results in term of W and L.
Suppose a red card entices a Banker bet and a black card a Player bet.
Now look at your registration card and take care about how W and L will place and form patterns.

Say our goal is to spot when a 3IAR W or L pattern will be 'more likely' to happen without a precise 'method' to follow.
We could bet singles and doubles, long streaks, dominant patterns, my plans, etc.
Obviously if we'd think the next hand will be more probably a W we will bet Banker if the first card at previous hand was red or Player if it was a black card and vice versa.

Notice that resolved hands will come out randomly of course, yet the first card nature is somewhat affected by a constant dependent 'world' working at various degrees as more red or black cards are live in the deck, higher will be the probability that this new 'road' will take a univocal 'betting the same side' line.

It's like that the actual deck is playing a parallel game with us, getting its strings of wins and losses.

Unfortunately such approach works quite bad at HS rooms or premises where players are allowed to peek at cards: many times it could be difficult to spot the nature of the first card as many players like to shuffle and reshuffle their cards, yet there's always the 50% general probability that both cards are of the same color. 

A final note.

What we cannot bear is the constant arrogant attitude of so called 'gambling experts' labelling all baccarat players as 'id.iots', at the same time endorsing games as poker where itlr the rake or tournaments fees cannot be overcome by the vast majority of the players.
So let people think that poker tournament coin flips have more scientifical merit than betting Banker or Player at baccarat.
(It's not a coincidence that poker players tourneys data are evaluated only by wins not mentioning a bit about the buy-in losses).

Join a baccarat table and you are an id.iot despite the 1.15% average negative edge; join WSOP (coming up in four days) where the awarded money is taxed at origin by 11% at most tournaments and you are an 'intelligent' player. Maybe if the poker dream doesn't come true this year, you can purchase some books instructing you how to magically overcome that fkng 11% edge. "Theory of this", "Theory of that", yet poker super minds must win 'intelligent' coin flips whereas baccarat players must guess "stu.pi.d" coin flips.

Maybe as bac players we should go 'all-in' more often thus trying to take the 'intelligent' part of coin flips.
By some reasons they are not so wrong.

as. 

The alternate B/P symmetrical scheme

This is an interesting approach to let hands get their flow without having to guess nothing but the lenght of the winning and losing situations.
It's a strict mechanical registration.

The procedure is very simple to follow: after the first hand is dealt (say it's a P) every next hand will follow the PBPBPBPB...scheme up to the end of the shoe.
If it's a B we'll use the BPBPBPBP....scheme.

Naturally if the B or P hand dictated by the scheme will win, we'll sign a W, otherwise a L is signed.

So for example a shoe sequence as

BBB
PP
B
PP
B
PP...

first hand is a B so the sequence becomes a WLWWLLLWWWL...

To cut a long story short, only chopping situations of some quantity happen to form long winning or losing patterns as any streak of any lenght at either side will stop the winning or losing process.

The theoretical plan is to face a pure symmetrical 50/50 preordered proposition with the sure asymmetrical hands distribution (and quality) of every shoe dealt.

Obviously probabilities to W or L remain (almost) the same and in fact, as always, we're not interested about getting long W spots or trying to avoid the L ones, just to evaluate an average impact of such registration over the entire shoe and for series of shoes.

Notice that probability to get long WLWLWLWL or LWLWLWLW patterns are related just to the occurence of streaks of lenght 5 or higher: e.g. BBBBB (WLWLW under BP plan and LWLWL under PB plan), the same about PPPPP.

At any rate, every streak happening at either side will make at least a W and of course half of the chopping lines will produce a long winning (or losing) sequence.
Since the number of 3+s streaks per shoe roams quite good around averages, we know that besides doubles stopping a homogeneous L or W pattern, many LWL or WLW (at least) spots will come around.

For now I stop.

as.

What the common mistaken belief is, that the order of the winning hands and the trends or patterns can be changed to suit the bettor. 

Reality is, when it is strong for one side, it remains strong.  When it is weak for either or both sides, it remains weak.  Nothing can change anything from happening. 

>>>>>"a state of balance between opposing forces or actions" will always be there, the only question is when does it dominate and form perfect or near perfect patterns.

Problem for almost all bettors is, their belief that they should follow their experiences as well as what the shoe has previously proven or not proven.  I know that is a catch all statement, but and seriously BUT, the equilibrium usually prevails the highest majority of the times when it approaches - or + 10 and once again right at the - or + 20 mark, especially around the middle of the shoe. 

The first part of the previous paragraph means, although it might seem beneficial it probably is contradictory to the shoe being played out.

There are numerous factors that must be taken into consideration when wagering for the 'equaling' out.

Thx AsymBacGuy for your responses to my reply#570 above.
Apologies for delay as I just returned from a multi-night bac trip.

ABG said: It's true that B or P 3s eventually belong to a more likely 3s/1-2s ratio, nonetheless itlr we'll face a slight greater number of shoes poorer of 3s than richer of 3s.

     I agree 100%. The main issue is we never know how many(3iar+) in that specific shoe, though we do know as each 3iar+ presents there is now one-less 3iar+ in the shoe. IOW the finiteness of Bac does present us with a limiting-type profile on most patterns. Just my thoughts/opinion.

ABG reponded: Another example is considering doubles vs 3+s streaks at byb and/or sr.

     You might clarify as Im not sure exactly what youre suggesting.


I stated in my reply570 the following when giving a hypothesis re: guessing 3iar correct(or incorrect) within 42 wagers in one shoe:

*My hypothesis is they would find almost identical results if I proposed the same exercise for them to try and guess 3iar CORRECT.

ABG said in response to the 42attempts: With that large number of bets I'd agree.

     Aahhh -very astute on your part as that was a key part of my hypothesis and one of the main points I wanted to make.
Meaning--We need to design our wagering regime to be insync with not only our buyin/win goals but also our own personal success rate for hitting X (# in a row wins) or in my proposal NOT being able to avoid 3iar wins(or loss)  streak.

     *I recently presented the scenario above (42 attempts to NOT guess 3iar correct OR incorrect) to three bac comrades that I share tables with approx 4x per week. They mostly do mild-to-steep negpro wagering regimes.
All three players are quite a bit older than me, and though experienced gamers likely haven't played as many hands of bac, in their 70s,  and have gamed at least 20-30+ years i would guess. All retired and I would assume have some mathematical knowledge and or education exposing them to general probabilities. Especially the CPA .
One owned a heating/air business, a dentist, and a CPA. I found it interesting as soon as I presented the criteria the CPA immediately said I would take that bet if you reduce the attempts to 21 vs the 42(meaning he only had to wager 21 attempts in his effort to avoid hitting 3iar). Of course I declined as that was part of my thesis because with the 42-attempt requirement they could not wait/stand on the sideline waiting for "best" opportunities* .
*Which is what we should do--IOW view each shoe as good,better, or best shoes (or sections) for our specific wagering regime/recognize that regardless of ones chosen wagering regime : Not all shoes are "best" and we may want to walk softly around the shoes that start out and are perceived as only "good or better" thus far.


I think most of us will agree:
When our wagering regime needs a certain number IAR(in-a-row) correct (like mine and most pospro) for success it is critical we give ourselves a reasonable number of attempts. Reasonable(i.e., optimum) number of attempts is best if we know our avg success rate (somewhat similar to levels & plateaus) as too many attempts then our profit is too small as a function of our buyin. If #attempts allotted is too few (vs our avg success rate) , then obviously we don't have enough bullets to survive long enough to get that steak. 

This is also a function of our press(or regress) regime as the more aggressive we are the fewer attempts(easier to bust out).
     IMO most players error by wagering  too small as a % of their advantage, house edge,  as well as a f(x) of their wagering strategy. Of course I don't know what their goal is(Im assuming it is to make more than they lose). Though some may simply be trying to get comps or play as long as possible,...etc(to each their own I guess).

Bottomline: We will have more long-term success if we design our whole regime(every single facet and detail) to match our own personal win goals and avg success rate for that specific wagering regime.


Continued Success To All,

Al wrote Problem for almost all bettors is, their belief that they should follow their experiences as well as what the shoe has previously proven or not proven.  I know that is a catch all statement, but and seriously BUT, the equilibrium usually prevails the highest majority of the times when it approaches - or + 10 and once again right at the - or + 20 mark, especially around the middle of the shoe.

Good point, then it's all about which patterns a player wants to follow or not.

The 'equilibrium' strenght or RTM effect or 'balancing' factor, whatever one wish to name this kind of natural happening produces  less strong deviations when many hands are needed to form a given pattern.
More hands form a pattern = less deviations.
Notice that long homogeneous streaks happening at either side do not belong to this category as just one hand which went unnaturally wrong for one side will simply prolong the already dominant side.   
And of course we cannot have any control on that.

What we can do, IMO, is to take the slight more natural flow of the things and comparing that to the actual shoe results.
So when many unnatural situations happen (the favorite two-card side will lose several hands) the shoe is not going to be a favourable one. Regardless of what the fkng roads will display, and even if we were winning at those unnatural hands as it doesn't last for long.

Long term data (and experience) help us just to find out the average math favorite spots flow; itlr we cannot expect to win by drawing a Player 3 point vs a Banker 7 maybe by shouting "two side".

More often than not, long streaks are just an 'incident' happening along the way, so restarting the more natural process of  two-card math favorite situations. 

as.

As you wrote, "More often than not, long streaks are just an 'incident' happening along the way, so restarting the more natural process of  two-card math favorite situations."

Players confuse themselves terribly with chasing 'incidents'.  Defining them cause the highest majority to chase, wait, continue wagering, etc., and IMO it is dangerous.  The incidents will always come and go quickly. 

Problem is, if you win on defining an incident almost always you will give back and lose additional funds in front of yourself by wagering for it again and again.  Why?  Because you have just convinced yourself of a definable opportunity. 

Players will find all kinds of incidents and there are many many so called incidents coming out of the shoe.  Not just long streaks.

But yes, many times after long streaks there are sections of chops, but my experiences of chops can be two cards each side, or five cards, as well as six card total hands. 

ABG said: It's true that B or P 3s eventually belong to a more likely 3s/1-2s ratio, nonetheless itlr we'll face a slight greater number of shoes poorer of 3s than richer of 3s.

     I agree 100%. The main issue is we never know how many(3iar+) in that specific shoe, though we do know as each 3iar+ presents there is now one-less 3iar+ in the shoe. IOW the finiteness of Bac does present us with a limiting-type profile on most patterns. Just my thoughts/opinion.

Hi KFB!

Good points.
I'll give you the strategy of a couple of bac pros I know, maybe it could help:

They selectively bet that a double or a given series of doubles won't make or will do make a 3+ streak and vice versa for 3+s streaks.
Naturally they give more emphasis when the searched outcome will be a Banker wager.
And they bet huge. Really huge.

Either a double or a 3+ streak will make a cluster or not, but if everything would follow a kind of 'sky's the limit' clustering effect baccarat wouldn't exist at all.

It's like we're taking the casinos' part: we hope 'following patterns' players  sooner or later will be wrong and as players we do bet that in selected circumstances the 'wrong' works in our favor.

as.

You wrote, " IOW the finiteness of Bac does present us with a limiting-type profile on most patterns. Just my thoughts/opinion."

Exactly correct.  Times it will help us and yet, at times it can hurt us.  Can a whole shoe be very strong?  Sure.  Can a whole shoe be extremely weak?  Sure.  But usually, as a norm it will be a mixture of both. 

Mind-sets are helpful and as well, dangerous. 

Quote from: alrelax on June 05, 2022, 10:35:48 PM
As you wrote, "More often than not, long streaks are just an 'incident' happening along the way, so restarting the more natural process of  two-card math favorite situations."

Players confuse themselves terribly with chasing 'incidents'.  Defining them cause the highest majority to chase, wait, continue wagering, etc., and IMO it is dangerous.  The incidents will always come and go quickly. 

Problem is, if you win on defining an incident almost always you will give back and lose additional funds in front of yourself by wagering for it again and again.  Why?  Because you have just convinced yourself of a definable opportunity. 

Players will find all kinds of incidents and there are many many so called incidents coming out of the shoe.  Not just long streaks.

But yes, many times after long streaks there are sections of chops, but my experiences of chops can be two cards each side, or five cards, as well as six card total hands.

Wonderful points Al!

Most people think that 'incidents' are more likely to produce 'actual deviated outcomes' as the idea to quit a shoe is out of order.
Then some 'reversed' points must take into account.

Recently we've witnessed a HS player (wagering 5k or more) abandoning the table after a 11 B streak happened, I mean without getting a P hand to stop his winning streak.
Actually the 11 B streak collected another 5 more B hands to get a final 16 Banker streak.

I do not recall a single bac player quitting a winning streak by not chasing that streak up to an eventual end.
Casinos prosper on such id.i.ot.s.

as. 

So many live for these types of shoes, then when they do appear just about the entire table is in real-life denial and wagering for the opposite side to match or just a continuous wagering for the so called, cut.  By the way, the last three natural bankers in the second run back to back, were all natural 9s over players natural 8s.  Which fueled the furious wagering on players. 

[attachimg=1]

ABG reponded: Another example is considering doubles vs 3+s streaks at byb and/or sr.

     You might clarify as Im not sure exactly what youre suggesting.


Well, it's more likely to find long 1-2 spots at byb and sr than at BR.
Actually we've found at byb and sr 1-2 series going up to consecutive 31 spots in a row without getting a 3+ streak than at BR (here maximum limit was 26).

For that matter and even taking into account the more probable 3s line, even CR will get an interesting amount of 'poor' 3s and many 1-2 spots.

Jackpots happen even at baccarat.

as.