The important thing is leaving the casino with more money in our pockets. 

as.

I'm astonished to see that people keep thinking that baccarat is beatable by progressive bettings of any kind.

Without a verified edge progressive bettings don't work and can't work, actually they constitute a sure detriment of any strategy. (Variance is greater, vig impact is greater, maybe comps are the only reason to adopt this silly line). 

About the edge.

A possible edge can only come out after having verified it at large datasets and by adopting the same betting amount.

If we'd think that after betting 1, future 2 or 3 or 1.1 or whatever bets involve a better EV we are completely falling into the worst gambler's fallacy territory.

The EV of any method, strategy, system or approach remains the same whether we bet $1 or $200.000 per hand. And per every intermediate category of such a range.

Humans can't read randomness and without the help of math and statistics can't read unrandomness either.
Why?
As the human brain is somewhat biased about 'overalternating' and 'overclustering' patterns where some event or classes of events are mistakenly taken as 'more likely' or 'less likely'.

So we're sure as hell that 'subjective' methods don't make winners but just deluded people.

Most of the times anytime we put a 'subjective' element in our strategy we are just gambling. And gambling is a EV- move.

Notice that gambling forums and internet videos abound of wonderful winning shoes without mentioning or presenting the specular harsh losing counterpart, just in case labeled as a rare 'unlucky' situation that may happen.

Actual card distributions might be relatively insensitive to math and statistical long term findings but they do are to subjective methods in the same way.

To measure a possible winning strategy

Again our old betting random walk friend will help us to find out whether we're doing good or just for a transitory luck's (short term positive variance) impact.

Per every shoe dealt we assume to start at a 0 point, left side is the negative territory and right side is the positive one. Each bet won makes a step toward the right and vice versa for a losing bet.
Alrelax is completely right about this: every shoe is a world apart in the sense that previous outcomes cannot noticeably affect in any way the next shoe.

Obviously such random walk must take into account the ROI, otherwise a simple steady Banker wagering will approach more and more the far end of the right side. 

What is important is that positive steps must be considered under the 'coin flip' multilevel probability classes, what we name as a 'limited random walk'.
For simplicity and according to my unb plans, we consider just two back to back betting spots (that is a way different thing than betting all of the time two consecutive hands). 

Assuming for simplicity a perfect 0.50% winning/losing probability, odds to get a two unidirectional step at either side are 0.25%, so most of the remaining times per every two-bet wagered (for real or fictionally) we'll get a kind of 'balancement' movement where W=L or L=W.
In other words our betting random walk doesn't sensibly move toward any side.

This movement do apply to every two opposite events fighting and the least battle we should be interested at is the B/P distribution as affected by too much volatility.

So 'complex' opposite events taken under the two wagers line mostly move around a 0.75% probability to show up, that is a kind of 'neutral' situation producing the least number of steps toward any side.

As long as the 0.75% or so probability shows up, we can't lose serious money, maybe just the vig when applicable (actually a portion of winning hands will benefit from the B propensity).
The problem remains about what to do when the 0.25% unidirectional probability will come out.

The answer is about the more likely 'clustered-clustering' values happening at such less likely event.

Say A event will fight vs B event.
Most of the times (75%) AB and BA two-step situations will prevail over the AA and BB patterns (25% each).

After a AA or BB pattern had shown up, next event will form either another univocal AA or BB pattern or a more likely AB or BA event.
Let's classify the first AA or BB pattern as 1, AAAA and BBBB patterns as 2 and so on. 

Notice that differently than a simple B/P patterns distribution, many 'complex' A/B patterns involve a way lesser variance than B/P outcomes as more hands are needed to form a A or B pattern.

Therefore BB and PP patterns tend to distribute themselves by a stronger variance than AA/BB patterns.

Moreover BBBB or PPPP patterns (two steps deviating from a more likely albeit proportional course) are slight more likely to show up than the same AAAA and BBBB counterpart and this last feature is more and more predominant whenever we take into account several steps of such kind.
Of course and as already sayed, single shoe productions are finite so anytime a more likely value or class of values are surpassed, we better consider the room left to get the more likely events coming out.

as.

For some reasons I'm more inclined to trust people betting serious money at bac tables and undoubtedly Alrelax and KFB belong to this category.

BTW, let me know if any long term member of this site would be interested to get a total free RFB accomodation in a couple of high end Vegas premises or in Montecarlo SBM properties and I will arrange it in a millisecond.

as.

 

This year, summertime, we will do Vegas.

I will bring $50k for my bankroll.

I still have a great MGM brand host whom can comp any MGM property for me/us.  I have some insight with some other brands still, some hosts of mine from pre-2017 are gone and others switched properties/brands.

You are the best Al!

Let's prepare in advance that summertime session hoping KFB will join us!

First dinner it's up on me, my favorites are:

Picasso or Joel Robuchon (French)

Il Fornaio or Canaletto (Italian)

Wing Lei (Asian)

Xavier (Mexican)

Sushi Yiroyoshi (Sushi)

What about your preferites?

as.

Golden Steer Steakhouse (old school and over the top) (free standing and not casino related) https://www.goldensteerlasvegas.com/

Peppermill (another freestanding and not casino related)
https://www.peppermilllasvegas.com/

Both Golden Steer and Peppermill up by the Wynn.

Spring Mountain Road area, street north side of Treasure Island and west of i15 interstate.  Several places.  Used to always go to one of the local SE Asian restaurants and it was open 24 hours a day.  I posted numerous pictures of the place and food there on the forum a few years ago.  There are a few other real cool places outside the casinos on Spring Mountain Road as well.

888 Korean BBQ
https://www.yelp.com/biz/888-korean-bbq-las-vegas-2.
Place we cook at our table.  Reminds me of the places in Manhattan around 32nd Street off Broadway.  Kind of place we do a 3-4 hour dinner. 

Picasso and Prime @ The Bellagio

Jasmine (Always Always eat there) @ The Bellagio

Old Homestead @ Ceasers Palace

PHO @ Treasure Island

Andiamo Steakhouse @ The D  (yeah yeah, it's downtown but it's fun, noisy and they have 2 bac tables up on an elevated stage like side of the main floor.  Drink some, play Macau style and rip and tear up the cards, just act like fools while winning.  The D is super noisy like I said.  Not the steakhouse, lol. And the steakhouse is suburb!).

There are others, those are just some of the favorites.

Hi Asymbacguy

In your post #751 above:

"Of course and as already sayed, single shoe productions are finite so anytime a more likely value or class of values are surpassed, we better consider the room left to get the more likely events coming out...."

I agree and like how you worded this. My personal view is that no matter what we choose to track in a single shoe it is finite and should be treated as always approaching a limit.

For example, let say we are charting or tracking "n": P/B, 2/2s, 1/2s,1/3s,the 8 card,...etc  Fill In The Blank, and as soon as "n" occurs for the first time, there are now only "n-1" remaining in that shoe.

We don't know exactly (though the laws of probability help guide us), what we do know is there is now one less and we just missed number one. Obviously, we still don't know exactly how many will present due to cut and residual cards at the end.
Yes, and this could be that one shoe where an extreme number for a specific multi-card pattern far greater than expectation presents. However, we do know there is now only "n-1" of that just-presented outcome available.
Plus, other patterns with similar-probability or greater-probability, that have NOT had one "n" removed yet, are still just as determined to present at >=their expected levels with less distance now available.

From the cut card onward every card, suite, pattern,  starts becoming n-1,n-2, ...etc as we cycle through the shoe.


Continued Success,

Al: yep Golden Steer at West Sahara (close to the defunct Lucky Dragon casino) is a classic for steakhouse lovers.

I'm curious about 888 Korean BBQ....

What about your preferred list of seafood restaurants?

@KFB.
Nice simple way of classifiying what we should expect and what we actually see at the shoe we're playing at.
I'll be back on this later.

as.
 

Human mind, symmetry and edge

Human mind is somewhat 'biased' by constantly looking for simmetry. Several studies have shown that when subjects are instructed to write down 'random' successions applied to a binomial probability, a sure undeniable 'overalternating' feature affects the results.
More interestingly is that real random objective successions are perceived by subjects 'less random' whereas unrandom successions are mostly considered as 'randomly' formed.

At baccarat the vast majority of people bet along those 'simmetrical' lines (widely intended), at the same time privileging just one kind of asymmetry, that is the 'long' streaks possibility.

Then there are 'foolproof' systems that give the subjective 'guessing' a 0 impact as every outcome  must fall into well restricted ranges.
Those worthless systems are mostly based around several kind of gamblers fallacies that many times are fallaciously(!) overtaken by the best short term move anyone could think of: progressive betting.
Nonetheless objective flat bet findings alone cannot lead to any EV+ with one billion of accuracy.
 
Therefore and simplyfing a lot, a 100% subjective way of considering things is EV-, as well as it's EV- a strict objective system stubbornly looking for precise triggers.
So the 'truth' must be in the middle. At least according to the money we've collected over the years at bac tables.

At baccarat the possible player's edge is a dynamical issue, surely defined after having measured long term flat betting results.

No matter the fkng strategy we are going to utilize, either we'll catch more W spots than L spots (after vig impact) or we are destined to fail.

Mathematically there's no way to 'guess' right by inserting a kind of 'subjective' sole element in our strategy whether bac successions are really random.
The same if bac successions are kind of unrandom.

On the other end, 'obiective' findings that tend to mix many different baccarat productions (card distributions) are sensitive to huge volatility that only in the long term will approach the expected values.

Subjective and objective strategies are two different categories of random walks following the same math laws, sometimes converging into the same betting line and other times negating it.
And obviously there are more likely positive or negative steps converging at a same betting line  than events forming long series of 'outliers' that could be 'heaven' or 'hell'.

For casinos the only tools that matter are the math edge and the several gamblers fallacies affecting almost every player. 
Educated players can overcome such factors.

as.

While playing baccarat is important to adopt an asymmetrical educated thought

An average strong asymmetrical card distribution acting at a constant slight asymmetrical game needs some brain adjustments to get the best of the game.

It's the key to win itlr.

We'll see it in a couple of days.

as.

Asymbacguy:

"Human mind is somewhat 'biased' by constantly looking for simmetry. Several studies have shown that when subjects are instructed to write down 'random' successions applied to a binomial probability, a sure undeniable 'overalternating' feature affects the results.
More interestingly is that real random objective successions are perceived by subjects 'less random' whereas unrandom successions are mostly considered as 'randomly' formed."

that's interesting. Along the same topic. I've seen studies that suggested slot players can detect a difference >=2% between payouts. For example, after playing multiple machines the player could correctly select the machine that paid more or less if that (more or less amount was >=2%).

So when we hear an avid slot player say: I don't play at XYZ casino because their slots are tight. Maybe they are indeed correct.

Cheers,

Nice point KFB!
After all the longer one observes what really comes out greater should be the probability to catch the 'boundaries' of some results. And slot players look at many many results.

Back to the topic.

There are two sure ways to lose a lot of money at baccarat tables:

1) Playing stubbornly to get a symmetry whenever a kind of 'asymmetry' is perceived by us;

2) Hoping that a kind of asymmetry works infinitely or per every new pattern coming out.

Most bac players do know the danger of adopting the #1 strategy so they are enticed to work on the approach #2. Unfortunately even this strategy can't win itlr as supposedly favourable asymmetrical patterns need valuable 'cutoff' points that cannot be extracted other than by the constant evaluation of what really happens with what is supposed to happen.

Now let's take the opposite casinos' thought:

These stup.i.d donators hope to get asymmetrical patterns for long but they can't as things will change; just in case our math edge will progressively work at our side so more bets they'll make higher will be our profits.
Moreover we can rely about the sure indeniable fkng bighorns.h.it publicized everywhere that baccarat is just a MM game.

Let's summarize casinos' hopes:

a) players deal with a EV- game;

b) players think to beat the game by a biased production forming more asymmetrical patterns than symmetrical ones;

c) players raise their bets by subjective feelings or hopes or thinking that a dry MM approach will get the best of the game;

d) players want to win huge or at least breaking even per each session.

Whereas we can't do nothing about the a) point, we may do a lot about the remaining three points:

b) Asymmetrical spots surely come out by more likely 'steps', yet the asymmetrical world is constantly mixed by a kind of symmetrical one and even this is affected by the same more likely steps. In some way many symmetrical spots will form an asymmetrical pattern.

c) Raising the bets without having ascertained a flat betting advantage is the sure recipe for the disaster. Yes, in the shortest terms a MM could sound as a viable strategy to beat the game but it isn't by one trillion of accuracy itlr.

d) In the vast majority of the times, 'Winning huge' per every session played is the perfect negation of a possible player's advantage as at baccarat we can't rely about a math edge and of course things change a lot along the course of a restrict amount of shoes.
Even worse is the 'urge' to quit the session as a 'break even' player: despite of knowing we'll win an average amount of bets per shoe, we can't precisely estimate how things will come out, the important stuff to rely upon is that our profit line will be more and more ascending.

Actually and when in doubt, there's a fifth point to consider that is the several distinct 'human' random walks formed by the other players seated at our table.
Even those will follow 'more likely' steps, especially whenever the shoe isn't so polarized to entice a univocal more probable betting line (long streaks or chops, long homogeneous patterns, etc).
This issue albeit sounding as strongly unscientific has some practical merit as being directly related to the subjective bias affecting humans while facing binomial productions.

as.

In reference to your above post.  In my words.

The Way We Think (Especially at the Baccarat Table!)

"It will happen"--"It has to happen".  Those are two of the most frequent sayings a player will here.  And at times, yes they both do and yet at other times, never.  Some might not say, never.  They explain it as, "then you are grasping, no evidence, just wishful thinking, etc.

Large wins, then nothing.  Like WOW!  Complete fizzle out, then turns into a demand to prove something to no one except myself, that I can win again or more.  Always the same, never changes.  Years and years of playing, different properties, different states and does not matter whether Asian, White or Latino, same same, does not change.

Here is another one, "Monkey See Monkey Do", the list can go on and on and on.  Okay, let us get going on the purpose of writing this now. 

I was coming into work this morning.  I was exiting a gas station/c-store parking lot onto a side street.  I wanted to make a quick left and go about 40 feet to a main east-west through-fare and hang a right turn.  However, this guy has to come up and literally block my exit and he had to wait for the car in front of him to get a break in traffic to turn left.  Of course he could not have left me room to go across and out, he had to block the way and stop smack in front of me instead of 15 or 20 feet before creeping up to the car stopped in front of him anyway.  What was he thinking, what was his perception, closer to the other car waiting and he would go faster?  Too much trouble to stop, let me out and then creep up to just wait anyway?  There had to be a logical explanation rather than, "I am just a jerk and I shall block the drive so this guy cannot get out and has to wait because I have to wait"?  Maybe, but I do doubt it.  I think it had to do more with perception, initial thought, etc., than the latter. 

One more, 'My Cousin Vinny', yes the movie, I love it.  Anyway, remember towards the beginning when Vinny was in court at the arraignment of the two kids and he did not understand the procedure for saying Guilty or Not Guilty?  Well, here is what happened:

Judge Chamberlain Haller: Mr. Gambini, the next words out of your mouth better be "guilty" or "not guilty." I don't want to hear commentary, argument, or opinion. I don't want to hear any facts or evidence. If I hear anything other than "guilty" or "not guilty", you'll be in contempt. I don't even want to hear you clear your throat to speak. Now, how do your clients plead?

Vinny Gambini: [intimidated, but the words go right past him] I think I get the point.

Judge Chamberlain Haller: No, I don't think you do. Now you're officially in contempt of court! Would you like to say something else and go for two counts of contempt of court?

Vinny Gambini: Not guilty.

Judge Chamberlain Haller: Thank you. Not guilty plea has been entered for the record. Probable cause hearing will begin tomorrow at noon. Bail for both defendants will be set at $200,000. Oh and bailiff, take Mr. Gambini into custody with them... and set his bail at $200 for one count of contempt of court.

Okay, Vinny had a different perception of what me and possibly you heard the judge say.  That is exactly what I am referring to, each one of our thought process, interpretations and perceptions might not be the same.  Well, the same thing happens at the baccarat table based upon each one of our past experiences, plateaus and other factors that are different for you, me and others. 

          *****EXPERIENCE--PERCEPTION--THOUGHT PROCESS*****

Experience, Perceptions and Thought Processes.  A lot in those three words, believe me!  Perception is probably the largest and the most confusing to each of us at the baccarat tables.  In fact, huge in baccarat as players tend to place wagers on what they think that they interpret will be coming up for one reason or another.  How the player thinks and reacts will equal, interpretation of the information the player observed.  As well, the past experiences, good or bad of that player.  Past runs witnessed, quantities of runs, infrequency of runs or chop-chop/alternating lengths, 1's-2's and 3's, 1's and 3's, doubles, balanced shoes, imbalanced shoes and lots more.  Lots and lots more.  If the player has not experienced certain things, then he does not know what might come out and when he starts, he will certainly be in the dark as to its formation reality and what could happen.  Please, do not misunderstand the aforesaid sentence for prediction or anything of the like.  With a reasonable player, with common sense and a player's mind, that is conscious of reality rather than wishful thinking and dreaming, prediction is not relied upon in the typical sense.

If the player has past experience then the player has good perception as to what very well could come about.  So, I am not saying old-timers that played this game for 30-40 or 50 years have a better shot at it then a fresh newbie does without deducing down how much experience, perception and thought process is used in a skillful way, rather than prediction wishful thinking and dreaming, based upon a written advisement someone created and sold on the internet entitled something like, "how to win at baccarat".

I am saying experience is huge along with an open frame-of-mind, the ability to interpret your perceptions within a clear thought process and the ability to pounce-on-it or stop playing and book a win.  That is why so many newbies seem to be the real deal and then a ? or ? shoe later are fizzling out with giving back all the win money followed by an aggressive attempt to recapture the win just lost, they have no ideas whatsoever how they won what they just lost in the first place.

3 Kinds of Perceptions will generally make-up the players thought process based upon his experience.

False Perception.  An erroneous perception of reality in baccarat.  Just a self-inflicted vision of concept and belief by the player.  The player will convince himself and thus be completely deceived by a false perception and subscription to his current wagering selections based solely on his past experiences or what others are mumbling and telling him to do.  The player will always rationalize out what seems to be fantastic and successful but the false perception will soon surface and cost him lots of money.  When he wins using this, it just fuels the soon to erupt fire that much greater.

Temporary Perception.  The player is attempting to calm his lust to win, usually after a period of false perceptions, just fizzled out and cost him a large amount of his win or buy-in capital he had.  Since perception is extremely hard to actually define and harder to actually understand by most people, the temporary perception is more of a fleeting, some right and almost on track type of result for the player which could send the player into larger wins or aggressive losses.  REALIZE WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS AND HOW IT HAPPENS!

Self-Correcting Perception.  The hardest to explain but here goes.  Almost elementary psych but one can very well relate to, self-correcting perception to learning.  How the younger school kids, say elementary school aged and how they are easier to convince and change their mind set then middle school aged and how middle school aged kids are easier to convince and change their minds than high school kids and/or adults would be.  But self-correcting perception, within baccarat is the player catching himself following others especially when they are wrong in their bet placement processes.  The player realizes he was drifting and not paying attention or at least he blames that as his excuse for following others and not paying attention, etc.  It would also cover the player's ability to correct himself with reverting himself back to the basics such as, remaining conscious of his plateaus, past experiences, capital, bet selection methods, duration of playing time, variances and win holding, etc., etc. 

In closing, if you think everything is 'cut and dried' with a simple bet selection/bet placement method and what you will walk away with or place as a stop-loss, it is not that simple.  Although it might be for those that have a one-side one-vision playing style, but for those players that are more successful, they realize that there is no easy definitive 'cut and dried' protocol of wagering, stop loss and win stop amounts. The latter has absolutely found the positive and tangible effects of being conscious and employing other factors and events into their basics of wagering, cashing out and playing time.     

Very good post indeed.

Best part imo is this:

If the player has past experience then the player has good perception as to what very well could come about.  So, I am not saying old-timers that played this game for 30-40 or 50 years have a better shot at it then a fresh newbie does without deducing down how much experience, perception and thought process is used in a skillful way, rather than prediction wishful thinking and dreaming, based upon a written advisement someone created and sold on the internet entitled something like, "how to win at baccarat".

Such statement is so true that whenever we find ourselves losing after a couple of shoes it's because we did something wrong, no matter how things went.
Mainly because we had bet too many hands.

as.

We are all different at the table, the highest majority of the times.  That doesn't mean we both, or me and another, can't get to the same exact decision many times.  But it is really the peripheral thoughts and beliefs that will excel us into further and larger wins, knowing how to take wins and allocate percentages for hold or continuance, time to play-time to stop, etc., and so on.

There is a heck of a lot more than wagering and it's selection.