Quote from: alrelax on December 13, 2019, 11:34:49 PM
Excellent. I have actually started an outline and I've identified no less than 10 advantages that I have used successfully, at times, over the past years .

More on that at a later date thanks for putting in the input.

Thanks Al!
I'll wait further comments from you about that.

as.

I will post a short outline under the topic, Wagers and Intricacies thread. 

Imo bac is beatable as the "general" probability doesn't correspond to the "actual" probability.

According to the general probability, itlr each spot will follow a 50.68%/49.32% BP probability, thus no one betting method could find spots where 50.68/49.32 ratio will be higher (or lower) than expected. In a word that the statistical deviations will follow such values, practically meaning that the model we are playing into is randomly placed and very very very very slight dependent at most.

Actually efforts made to find profitable spots were made ONLY by math procedures.

Easy to see such procedures contain a big mistake as they were tested on pc generated shoes where randomness supposedly prevails.
Moreover, they couldn't take into account the probability of success of certain events considered by ranges, as they kept for grant that whenever A>B any other subsequent situation will follow a costant asymmetrical line and it's not the case at baccarat as a single 8 or 9 falling on one side will dictate mostly the outcome.

as.

Its Christmas so some free time.

2 guys representing the polar opposite of the types of baccarat players.

One is a trend breaker. Lets call him James. If he sees 3xB, he bets for a P to come next. Even when there is a break away where previous results only show maximum of 2xB. Or after a cluster of say 2,3,5,3,4 B and P group, there comes the alternate B-P-B...  (in Chinese parlance ding-dong), he will next bet B predicting the alternates will come to an end. If the result is a P, hence B-P-B-P he will next bet P predicting the alternating results will come to an end.

Peter is the polar opposite. When there is a break as in the 3xB, he will continue betting B predicting it will be the start of a ?dragon? run.

Likewise when the alternates (ding-dong) comes into play, he will bet for the alternate ding-dong to continue.

Most players are either one of the other. Occasionally there comes along someone like Glen who has the guile to be flexible and bend with the wind and not break. Otherwise there is a propensity to be at least, more one type of player then the other. Watching also for trends to follow or break in the small charts ie big eye, small road, cockroach or bead plate.

No matter. Here is where I differ in my stance from Asymbac who states that good betselection is more important then money management in ensuring one wins at the casino.

I believe that money management is the decisive matter. You see, if one is a trend player or anti trend player or anything in between, on every visit (lets not even talk long term), there will be many occasions when the trend player will be winning and many occasions when games are more random, that he would be losing. Similarly, there will be occasions when the anti trend player will be winning and occasions of dragon runs or other discernible patterns, when the anti trend guy is put to the sword.

Whatever your playing style, there would be occasions when it becomes so clear to you what to bet next and you win! But there are also occasions that whatever you bet or is clear to you yet you lose. You lose when you bet Banker amd player has one point and you draw a third card to end up with baccarat or zero points. Or you bet Player draws a third card to give you 8 points and Banker draws a third card to end up with 9 points. This is Baccarat! 🙄

So the decisive criteria to walk away a winner is to find a formula to walk away when you are winning and starting to lose back. Stop and go home. Because to my observation, certainly every gamer will surely be winning at a certain point during the casino visit. I don't know about those two players who talk about making 2 wins and going back. that's another ball game altogether. But what's so difficult about winning 2 times in a visit ? 🙄

Glen has some suggestions. For me, if you win > 70% of your buy in money and you lose back 30% stop. If you did not touch the lose back of 30%, you may continue. This is really a useful guideline. Discipline you to be careful and not make wild bets while ahead.

EASIER SAID THEN DONE

I am going to make some comments to your reply here Lungyeh.

I don't want to cluster Asyms thread, so I'm going to post it in my section called Wagering and Intricacies.  I'll work on it now.

You have some of what I posted correct and you got some of it wrong, I'll explain in that section.

But what's so difficult about winning 2 times in a visit ?

Thanks Lung for your reply, among your interesting points I highlighted this passage.

It's so difficult to win in two visits in a row as people treat baccarat as a kind of lottery where each ticket they are buying offers (slight) unfair odds.
A lot of ding-dong? Hit the jackpot. A lot of singles and doubles or consecutive streaks? Another jackpot.
Strong imbalances between B and P? Again it's a jackpot as well as every kind of repetitive patterns.

Now, are there reasons to think that along the way we'll hit such lotteries more often than not?
Yes, such (small) jackpots come out with a decent frequency but not enough to balance and invert the constant house edge. No matter how sophisticated is our progression plan or MM.

Sayed that, I'm not ruling out the possibility that some acute players tend to get a clearer picture of the whole situation without the knowledge of possible randomness defects or whatever could alter an unbeatable random model. Still the common trait of such players is to play very few hands.

We ought to remember that without math advantages, it's impossible to beat any EV- game whether considered randomly distributed.
Therefore our only option to beat it is to consider and study why, when and how could be unramdomly placed.

No luck intervenes on our side.

as. 

We've been taught for years that B probability is 50.68% and P=49.32% but probably just a couple of persons explained mathematically by combinatorial analysis why those percentages were obtained.
A shortcut would be to consider a very long sample of observations and, voila', those percentages tend to coincide with those values.
Therefore theory and practice meet.

But it's interesting to notice that such probabilities are the reflex of dynamic probabilities since B probability varies with big jumps from 50% to 57.93%, values that P side must accept passively.
Moreover the game is, yes, intended as partially dependent anyway at a degree not substantially altering the features of a perfect independent world happening at a fair roulette, for example.
Finally and fortunately nobody investigated seriously whether certain outcomes come from a real random production, an essential requisite to make unbeatable a slight taxed game offered at casinos.

Actually and by utilizing a very strict definition of randomness, no one live shoe is randomly produced even though for practical purposes not every shoe will be playable (at least by the"human" possibilities tested so far).
That's because is very difficult (not to say impossible) to arrange cards in a way that certain events cannot be perfectly independent to others and, of course, the word we must take care most of is dispersion.

The fact that after 10.000 BP resolved hands dealt on average 5068 are banker outcomes and 4932 are player results doesn't necessarily mean that every possible distribution will follow the dispersion values known regarding other propositions.
Neither should be considered an insurmountable obstacle the tiny tax applied at baccarat.

As previously sayed in my posts, it could be that what I label as "random defects" are just  instrinsic flaws of the game not investigated by so called baccarat experts, mainly oriented by nature to find math advantages (card counting techniques).

At any rate we think that dispersion values cannot be practically limited when apllied at a random situation even if the game is asymmetrically governed and acting under slight dependent processes. Thus a kind of unrandomness must act in some way.

For a moment let's say the first initial collection of BP results appears as really random. Therefore unbeatable. No problem with that.
That is per every class of W situations we'll get a proportional class of L events with huge degrees of variance.

In order to confirm that outcomes are random, we'll make certain sub collections derived from the primitive simple BP succession every bac player in the universe relies upon.
If the first collection is really random then every each sub collection must be random, otherwise it's negated the perfect randomness condition.

For example, say we build our personal derived road, that is a random walk in such a way:
Anytime a winning natural point comes out on a given side, we'll register the outcome of the next hand as I (identical) or O (opposite) in relation to the side which previously won by the natural point.
Therefore per each shoe we'll get a I and O succession having an average 34.2% probability to appear, meaning that on average such new road will get around 26 decisions.
No surprises, the average number of I and O after this new collection will be as expected but what differs on most part of shoes dealt is the distribution of patterns that could alter on our favor the probability of success.

It's astounding to see that shoes coming from the same shuffle procedures acting on the same shoe will provide the best opportunities to grasp a possible unrandom world that, I repeat, shouldn't be considered other than from a strict dispersion point of view.

as.

Baccarat is one of the purest form of gambling, no wonder it has acquired an increasing popularity over the years.
After all players must guess a pre-ordered succession of events and getting the luxury to choose what, when and how much to bet.
No one other gambling game provide such features.

But to be consistent winners we must assess by the greatest possible precision what's our real probability to win or lose.
Since a baccarat shoe is composed by a finite number of cards where many of them are "key cards" we should estimate what are the real probabilities to get an event or the opposite.

We all know that B probability to win on each spot is either 50% or 57.93%, whereas P probability to win remains at 50% (actually some card distributions favor P side more than that).
Itlr, that is after having mixed several outcomes (maybe springing form different sources) the average BP probability comes closer and closer to the 50.68/49.32 ratio.

A total different issue regards the probability of success (POS), that is the probability to win after a given succession of bets.

Whereas the probability to win or lose on each side remains constant and mostly unguessable, shoes present a variety of POS that equals to 1, that is the certainty that at least one searched event will appear.
Of course the possible unfortunate counterpart is zero, that is that the event searched won't appear at least one time in our shoe or after a short sequences of consecutive shoes.

Easy examples where POS=1 (probability equals to certainty) are:

- shoes producing at least three streaks

- shoes producing at least one P or B double (unless long streaks happened on either side)

- shoes producing at least one asymmetrical formation along the way

and so on

Of course such strong features generally won't be of practical use without the use of an impossible progression, unless being mildly moderated and multilayered conceived (Albalaha could instruct us about this).

Forgetting the single shoe probability which could be easily affected by a kind of so called "randomness", POS may be endorsed by waiting the appearance of huge unlikely situations.
The more we wait for the "unlikely" events, greater will be our POS.
A thing that cannot work at other independent models as roulette, for example.

Say we are putting outcomes vertically in a grid made of columns of 10 spots each (a 10-hand bead plate not considering ties). Now we want to form a new registration of I and O results regarding the left position of the new outcome.
At the eyes of the experienced player it will appear very soon that such new random walk isn't affected by a an indipendent and unguessable model, as a place selection procedure will demonstrate that most shoes won't follow a 50.68/49.32 ratio by any means.

Some spots are slight more likely than others, some ranges of apparition are more likely than others.

as.

Imo there are no other ways to beat the game unless we have proved that bac is working by more or less unrandom standards.

Of course we can't rule out the possibility that an "usual" unrandom world sometimes could take the resemblance of an unbeatable random model, that's why we prefer to discard shoes not fitting our plan at the start instead of trying to get a kind of "more likely world" in the subsequent portions of the shoe.

More on that later.

as.

Since I can't touch the SM machines topic, let's compare baccarat with roulette.

At roulette every spin will provide symmetrical probabilities, since the probability of each number or groups of numbers remains the same (1/37, 2/37, etc).
Say the whole model we are playing into is symmetrical by any means.

At baccarat every BP hand will be formed by two distinct and very different probabilities: 50%/50% and 57.93%/42.07%. Those different probabilities alone makes baccarat an asymmetrical game.

Of course every fkng shoe dealt will present different values of such asymmetricity, either in terms of numbers and, more importantly, in term of distributions.

Everybody reading my pages (btw, thanks to you) knows that the asymmetrical 57.93/42.07% value should come out on average 8.4% of the total hands dealt.
A probability value very similar to betting 3 numbers at a single zero roulette (8.1%).

Every player having a decent familiarity of both roulette and baccarat would expect that a similar probability (3 numbers vs asym hand) will produce similar dispersion values taken on the same 75 hands sample.

It seems this is not the case.

Easy to argue that a shoe formed by a finite number of cards burnt hand after hand is quite different from a so called perfect symmetrical world happening at roulette.

More importantly is to notice that when a 3 numbers group hit at roulette the winning probability is 100%, whereas at baccarat we are still fighting with a well lower 15.86% edge.
On the other hand, every other spin not hitting our 3 numbers provides a 100% losing event whereas at baccarat we still get a "fair" 50% (taxed) probability to win.

Itlr, a perfect math plan should be oriented either to bet P trying to escape the 42.07% unfavourable winning probability or, it's way better, to catch the 57.93% winning probability when betting B.

In truth a wonderful virtual player capable to always bet P without crossing one time a single asym hand will get very tiny profits (p=50%, yet certain card distributions happening on symmetrical situations help the Player side thus enlarging a bit the P probability). But there's a more excellent player, that is whoever is capable to bet B as he/she assessed that an asym hand will come out more likely within a more restricted range than what math dictates.

Some very experienced players (Alrelax and Sputnik surely belong to this list) have raised the ability to catch or abandon the situations where B or P winning probability ranges are more or less restricted than what the old 50.68/49.32 ratio dictates.

But the common denominator we have to put in first place is that shoes are not randomly shuffled (say it's physically impossible to arrange cards by so called perfect random models).

There are many ways to detect this, I prefer to choose a strict objective betting placement following the best "randomness" definition ever made by some statistics experts.

as. 

Well first of all , thank you AsymBacGuy and Alrelax for all those generous and insigthful post .

I like the idea of getting an edge by knowing , finding unrandom shoes ( bad shuffling ).

With roulette, the only way i found to make big wins is by following hot numbers with a positive progression .  Hot numbers could come up by pure luck or by some bias ( unrandom) , dealer signature or something physical affecting the wheel .

The challenge is that the bias will not be there for very long usually -:)

Thank You!

Quote from: Fran7738 on January 16, 2020, 05:44:06 AM
The challenge is that the bias will not be there for very long usually -:)

Exactly.
The same about baccarat and this is the very point I'm trying to make over the years.

At baccarat it's quite easy to confuse strong "easy to detect" patterns (as long streaks, long B or P single/double successions, etc) with a statistical bias that must provide unrandom successions ascertained by tools as place selection and probabiliity after events, for example. Successions not happening around the corner, of course.

as.

There are different approaches to play baccarat, surely people writing here is loaded with experience and guided through the help of very long term observations.

The masters of a so called situational strategy are Alrelax and Lungyeh, me and Sputnik preferring a more objective approach. Then comes Albalaha that loves to take a strict math method capable to overcome the most unfavourable situations every nearly 50/50 proposition will form along the way.

Collecting all those different thinking lines, we could assume that baccarat is an infinite production of steady or mixed events happening at various degrees.
The common denominator is we do not want to force probabilities unless we have reasons to think that at some point/s A>B.

By adopting several different place selection collections, we suddendly notice that the so called undetectable random model isn't so undetectable as expected.

And the more we are waiting for a given event, higher will be the probability to get a searched event, even knowing that the winning probability won't never be 1.

A thing possible only as shoes are not randomly shuffled.

Next advanced strategy thoughts about my unb plan #2.

as.

To understand my point first we need to assign a specific role to the word "probability".
It doesn't exist probability calculus over a given sample of data without the involvement of a "proper" randomness factor.

Probability can only be ascertained by assessing the limited values of relative frequency made over long samples of the same collective and, more importantly, of "infinite" sub collectives derived from the collective mother. 
And real randomness can only be verified by statistical tools as place selection and not by classical probability formulas that consider each scenario as equally placed or corresponding to simple long term ratios involving too general features (B>P is the best known).
At least if we want to beat the game itlr.

No wonders, we can't have a single possibility to beat a random EV- game, that is a game where the winning probability is insensitive to place selection. Meaning that no matter which spot we choose to play on many sub-collectives our EV will be always negative. Even if our bets will be always placed on "more likely" B side. Such difference will be limited to a mere less -0.18% disadvantage and we do need a lot more to win itlr.
Only the shoes affected by a fair degree of unrandomness could be beaten itlr. By a degree very very close to 100%.

My unb plan #2 is one of the simplest examples of that.
We build three different collectives (supposedly being three distinct random walks) derived by the consecutiveness of B doubles.
Rw #1 will fictionally bet after a single B double not getting another B double (that is betting just two times and then stopping until a new situation will arise), rw #2 will fictionally bet after two B doubles had appeared and the same about r.w. #3.
Our challenge is to assess whether such B double clusters itlr will stop or prolong at percentages different to the classical expected values (in a way or another).

Since we have been told that no matter which spot we decide to bet our EV will be always negative (with all the related consequences about dispersion values), we want to verify such thing.

We register how many consecutive W or L we will get from each of those three distinct betting plans, of course when r.w. #1 will steadily win plans #2 and #3 will get no entry or mostly very few entries.
As our derived plans must consider a precise trigger (any B double up to 4 consecutive doubles considered as a losing overall situation), many shoes won't be playable for a "lack of space", meaning that we can easily wait a high percentage of the shoe played before getting a B double trigger.

And it could happen that a 4+ B double consecutive recurrence will be placed at the start of the shoe, meaning that all our r.w.'s will be losers (anyway just at one step each).

Hence we are forced to work at various degrees among two opposite situations, the lack of triggers from one part and the "unlikely" situation from the other one.

Let's run a "random" 10 live shoes sample taken from my data (I used the actual time) and see what happens.
The number after any shoe indicates the number of B consecutive doubles. *=a losing hand not forming a resolved hand according to my plan):

1) 1, 2

2) 1, 1, 1, *

3) 1, 1

4) 2, 1

5) 1, 1, 1, 2, 1

6) 2, 1, 1, 1

7) 1, 1, 1, 1

1, 1, *

9) 1, 1, 1, 1, 2

10) 1, 2, 1, 1

Another sample taken randomly:

11) 1

12) 1, 3, 2, 1

13) 1, 1, 1, 1

14) 2, 2

15) 1, 1, 2, 1, 1

16) 1, 1, *

17) 5, 1, 1

18) 3, 1

19) 1, 2, 1, 1

20) 1, 1, 3, *

again more 10 shoes

21) 1, 1

22) 3, 2

23) 2, 1, 2

24) 1, 1, 1

25) 1, 3, 1

26) 1, 1

27) 1, 1

28) 1, 2

29) 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1

30) 1, 2, 1.

more ten live shoes

31) 1, 1, 1

32) 1, 1, 1, 3, 2

33) 1, 1

34) 1, 1

35) 1, 1, 1, 1

36) 2, 1, 2, 1, 1

37) 1, 3, 2, 1

38) 1, 1

39) 1, 1, 1, 2, 2*

40) 1, 1

Try to run your LIVE shoes and you'll see that those values will more or less correspond to such results (providing to assign a proper 1, 2 or 3 value to your distinct r.w.'s)

Even if you think that such results will be manipulated in some way (and you can bet that they are not as you are well aware I'm not selling anything) we may assume that such "easy to detect" outcomes are the result of many opposite forces acting along the way per each shoe:

1- propensity to get more B3+ than B2 after a B2 outcome

2- very very slight propensity to get the opposite result already happened

3- the possible unrandomness of the game


Now, the #1 factor is mathematically ascertained not needing further explanations.
#2 factor is either confirmed by simple statistical issues and by mr Shackleford  authority.
#3 third factor was deeply studied by myself confirming without a doubt the shoes are not collectives, that is they are definitely not randomly placed.

Naturally there are more precise and accurate random walks oriented to disprove the common assumption that at baccarat anything is possible at any time.

A total complete bighornsh.it by any means.

as.

Here are 34 real live shoes recently dealt at one HS Vegas room (not involving a SM machine):

- 1, 1, 2

- 1, 1

- 1, 1, 1, 1

- 1, 2, 1, 1

- 3, 2, 1

- 3, 1, 1, 5, 1

- 2, 2, 1

- ----

- 1, 1, 1, 1

- 1, 1, 1

- 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 4

- 2, 2, 2

- 1, 3, 1

- 2, 1

- 1, 1, 2, 2

- 3, 3

- 1, 1

- 2, 1, 1, 3

- 1, 3, 1, 1

- 2, 1

- 1, 1

- 1, 2, 1

- 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1

- 1, 2, 1

- 2, 1 ,1

- 1, 1, 1, *

- 1, 4, 1, 1

- 1

- 1, 1

- 1, 1, 1, 2

- 1, 1, 1

- 1, 3, 1

- 1, 1, *

- 2, 1, 1, 1, 1

Notice that, for example,  the second position being the effect of "so called" whimsically and random results, formed outcomes of: 1,1,1,2,2,1,2,0,1,1,1,2,3,1,1,3,1,1,3,1,1,2,1,2,1,1,4,0,1,1,1,3,1,1.

First position formed those results:

1,1,1,1,3,3,2,0,1,1,1,2,1,2,1,3,1,2,1,2,1,1,1,1,2,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2.

Now tell me how the fck one can lose by a selected betting strategy applied on those patterns.

And for obvious reasons I have presented one of the stu.pi.dest r.w. that could work on such game.

as.