Thx Asym for recommendation on Billy Walters book.
I purchased tonight.


Cheers,

Good choice, KFB! 


Are we sure to play with an edge?

In every asymmetrical proposition (itlr a side is advantaged over the other one, say our plan) it's natural to expect a W>L ratio, but there are more important tools to consider, that is the winning streaks shape and their distribution.

Obviously to exploit an edge, itlr W clusters must be superior than W isolated events meaning that very often it's not the actual W streaks lenght to shift things in our favor.
That's because the variance will put a strong obstacle to expect homogeneous situations featuring all of the time a greater amount of W clusters than W isolated situations.

In fact, W isolated events may easily come out clustered, so if you have a plan that went through a 4 or 5 or even 6 W isolated series without reaching superior values you can safely assume you were just lucky.

Even worse are the L sequences that cannot be 'controlled' by their lenght as under normal circumstances the edge remains small.

The trick to raise the probability of success is just a ploy to more likely catch the W clusters, well knowing that it can be valid only when fitting an 'average card distribution'.

Algorithm action


The algorithm is set up by two levels:

a) a mechanical classification about the probability of getting this or that by math features applied to a coin flip proposition;

b) an evaluation of the above results by statistical standards more or less deviating from an 'average' card distribution so enticing or not the betting.
I've utilized the word 'evaluation' (a topic already touched in a previous post), as the actual action must be calibrated upon the goal the players aim for: there are people who wants to play a quite number of hands (I hope mainly for comp reasons) and there are players who want to be right at very selected situations by wagering huge sums.

At any rate, the algorithm gets the best of it no matter what as it was instructed to take care of average card distributions, frequently stopping its action when things tend to not conform to those distributions.

Another important and counterintuitive issue is that the a) classification provide many shoes featuring an overall unit loss, so enhancing the concept that very often it's not important what we bet but 'when' we bet.
Obviously the (over) 'balanced' part is made of shoes providing ALL wins, it's just a matter of (few) time we'll exploit our edge.

The backup algorithm

Say that for some reasons the average card distribution is disregarded for long or for the entire shoe(s), so tossing into the trash our algorithm.

Besides the fact that such distributions will likely make the fortune of recreational or gambling players (so the almost entire baccarat community), we still have the tool to get our profits.

It's sufficient to postpone the algorithm A by a 1 factor, so building an algorithm B getting a different scheduled a) pace but a same b) rhythm.

Unlike the derived roads where the same Big Road will contemporarily produce quite diverse patterns at the three lines, algorithm A and algorithm B will produce the almost same number of expected spots but just by different permutations.

Since itlr the edge is mathematically insensitive of the permutations issue (as long as the card distributions fall into the average field) but relatively susceptible of short-intermediate variance, we may find reasons to put in action the algorithm B when the algorithm A stalls for long without suggesting any bet.

Now and in no way we're playing a kind of 'opposite' plan, we're just playing the probabilities under a 50% different pace plan.

So the only real problem to face is not about the probability to win but to properly set up manually the algorithms as it's quite easy to make mistakes, even if we just use the main algorithm A.

See you next week

as.

First thanks for your interest.
I've tried again to forecast results at casinoscores site but it's a very difficult task to achieve, mainly as sometimes results are not properly registrated and then for a lack of proper betting time.
All this despite of my algorithms are perfectly working at my pc (so differently to a live world where we'll have to make the job manually) but even then they need some time to insert the actual results, not mentioning the problem to post in the site my forecasting ASAP.
(An additional addendum is that we don't like playing online for several reasons). 

Anyway you can be so sure about the edge I'm talking about that you can safely put at stake whatever you have on your name as no negative variance in the world could break our advantage.

BTW, it's very likely that among the best baccarat players in the world most of them are here.
So you're not wasting your precious time reading these site's pages.

as.

Hi AsymBacGuy

Thanks for your many fine posts.
re:post#871 above:

"...Algorithm action


The algorithm is set up by two levels:

a) a mechanical classification about the probability of getting this or that by math features applied to a coin flip proposition;

b) an evaluation of the above results by statistical standards more or less deviating from an 'average' card distribution so enticing or not the betting.
I've utilized the word 'evaluation' (a topic already touched in a previous post), as the actual action must be calibrated upon the goal the players aim for: there are people who wants to play a quite number of hands (I hope mainly for comp reasons) and there are players who want to be right at very selected situations by wagering huge sums...."

To help clarify my understanding:

Can you give an example of how many units is in your buyin?

Do you exhaust all of buyin within one single shoe?

Do you make a predetermined number of attempts within a shoe and then stop?

Do you make a predetermined number of Wins > than Losses and then stop?

Do you make "paper" bets until you see "Not a win", then commence your wagering--In other words wait and then expect a slight RTM?

If you miss a few do you start a slight neg progression to recoup a "less-than-desirable" hit rate?

Thx in advance

Hi KFB, thanks for your interest!!


Since we have verified that the alg. provides a slight number of more Ws than Ls (after vig), we consider any single session just as a minuscule part of the whole picture, so putting the maximum effort toward not losing severely than winning a lot.
Moreover, when a shoe is not featuring our 'average' expectations, we'll raise the requisites of future bets up to the point where we won't bet a dime anymore.

Oppositely, when a shoe seems to fit 'too much' to the average distribution, we may start to bet more spots but the betting amount more or less tends to stay at the same level.

So it's impossible to make us to lose a buy-in at a single shoe as the 'buy-in' concept simply doesn't exist. Let's assume we can rely upon a virtual'infinite' buy-in.   
 
So far the alg is not so sophisticated to cover all the situations when to stop (or prolong) our betting in relationship of the previous wins/losses register as it simply tries to spot each time what should be more likely to happen after a series of pattern results we've inserted on it.

Obviously the RTM effect makes an important role partially balanced by the rare most deviated card distributions denying it.
When in doubt and unless the rare strong deviations are coming at our favor (because are 'due'), stopping the bet is the best move to take, IMO.

Despite of having ascertained that the algorithm works wonderfully, we have learnt at our expenses one more time that most part of negpro plans are just making the casinos' fortune, that is that variance cannot be controlled by varying the betting amounts as even a verified edge could need a lot of time to show up.

See you later and again I'll try to make fictional bets at casinoscores site.

as.

There's no way to make fictional bets appearing as genuine wagers at casinoscores for many reasons.
So we better talk about general thoughts.

 

Consider every possible shoe's scenario and its probability to happen and you'll have the answer about how we have set up the algorithms.

Remember that we're dealing with a finite slight dependent proposition being asymmetrical at the vast majority of the times.

So "long" symmetrical scenarios are the exception and not the rule.

Moreover we have added a decisive factor in our r.w.'s by implementing strict math and statistical features that cannot disregard an average card distribution as any hand is not completely coming out 'out of blue' as a roulette spin.

In a word, nearly 90% of the times we'll possibly lose just for a less likely permutations issue and at the 10% remaining part we are forced to bear a quite unlikely card distribution that could be extremely good around 6% of the times or extremely bad 4% of the times.

Interestingly, when one algorithm seems to fall into the negative permutations issue or being prey of a strong negative deviated field, and we're not willing to wait for a more natural course of action (whether the shoe is still considered 'playable'), the other one performs so good that it's a child's joke to select the most profitable situations.

After all, both algorithms move around the same math and stats concepts, that is the relative unlikelyhood to get symmetrical results for long.

See you in a couple of days.

as. 

Think that our algorithms give a bighorn.sh.it about what math experts keep claiming, that's why they actually work.

We're clowns but knowing very well what Richard Von Mises, M. v. Smoluchowski, Konold, Nickerson, P. Revesz, Marigny de Grilleau and many others have written about randomness and statistical or gambling topics.

Oh well, math experts know better than them...

Thanks, thanks, thanks!!!!

as.

Derived roads vs algorithms

Everybody knows that a given plan performing bad at a given derived road very often will form opposite situations at one or both other roads, so enticing us to change the succession to be followed, with the hope that things keep staying in the 'good' territory.

Sometimes the 'trick' works and other times does not and of course most of the times the probability to succeed is 50%. So worthless.
 
The derived roads invention was a brilliant accomplishment made by some Macau colleagues in the 70s (there are some statistical features to exploit by playing them) but somewhat flawed from the start.

The main problem of the DRs is that they are geometrically produced like bricks forming walls of different height, so 'too much' affected by the actual card distribution without giving a proper  role to the decisive math features.

In fact, whereas natural difficult situations arise at both DRs and algorithms and for different reasons, DRs do not give us the luxury to rely upon a 'well calibrated and controllable' scenario, the paramount condition to set up serenely a profitable plan itlr.

In truth, each DR is capable to provide longer positive situations than our algorithms but with the fatal downside to make more probable long negative sequences to happen.
A thing that we must avoid at all costs.

Obviously the same problem applies to the Big Road but at least here we possibly get additional factors to rely upon (see 'codes' plan for example).

But the most interesting thing we've found is that DRs are providing 'symmetrical' events, in the sense that every road will whimsically present good or bad situations in relationship of the actual distribution without any link between the three lines, whereas alg A when seems to fail makes alg B to get a more normal 'course of action'.

Despite of being both algorithms built with the same math and actual distribution issues, the alg A always takes the lead over the alg B as this one is considered just a back-up (still very profitable) plan. 

More later

as. 

The algorithms are built after having tested thousands and thousands of real shoes coming from various sources:

- Manually shuffled shoes

- Shuffle Master Machine shoes

- Preshuffled shoes (typical of HS rooms)

- Different mix of the above procedures

Results and profitability are the same, there are no significant statistical values favoring one or another method of shuffling.

Therefore we have thought that the partial unrandomness or the nearly perfect randomness of card shuffles won't make a role in determining the excellent alg's prediction.
That tends to collide with our past hypothesis that only a defect of randomness could make a game beatable.

Since we are not so naive to think that we were up on something without a reason, we thought that the old key cards asymmetrical distribution makes an important role about the results, moreover reinforced by what we name as "average card distribution" where alg A put the most emphasis on.
At the relatively less likely occurences where the 'average' seems to fail privileging the outliers and despite of a huge betting selection, the alg A stops its action conceding room to the alg B, but this is just a back-up less important move as more shoes we'll play more consistent will be the probability to exploit our EV+.

For sure there will be better algorithms to beat the game, yet we have tested an unbelievable number of different possibilities and so far those are the best.

The decisive factor, in our opinion, was to get a possible long term 'optimal play' based by comparing expected math and statistical features with the actual results, so even density and rhythm of presentation are both valuable tools to instruct the algorithm to make a proper job.

As already sayed, an ironic aspect to consider is that a same pattern (commonly considered as a single or a double, etc) could be a losing or a winning spot in relationship of when the alg decides to act.

To make a simple counter intuitive example, alg A may easily suggest to bet P after PP or PPP, or to bet P after B as those are the slight more likely occurrences related to the actual distribution.   

Obviously and to make the already complicated concepts simpler and to implement the authors ideas, the algorithms consider BP results as 50/50 spread, thus having the expected same probability to appear.
So in the process and while betting P side, we're conceding a general (but volatile) -0.18% math edge to the house.
Actually the algorithms are capable to catch situations where P probability is way over than 50% whereas B side gets more difficulty to spot situations surpassing easily and safely the 51.3% profitability cutoff point.

But this is a well known baccarat problem while betting B side: Either we're rarely astoundingly right (8.6%) or absurdly consistently wrong (91.4%).

See you next week

as.

BTW, next week we'll talk about the 'overfitting' problem. 

as.

IMO, more parameters we're inserting in the algorithms and greater will be the probability to get a poor prediction as the baccarat variables are so many that we risk to sink in the undetectable ocean where casinos take their huge profits.

For practical reasons, we've chosen to set up both algorithms in the simplest way and obviously 'training data' take care of the old 'average card distribution' that cannot be disregarded for long.
As already sayed, when an actual card distribution tends to deviate from the 'average', algorithms stop their action even if they have collected a temporary loss.

Good news is that when both algorithms are in action, in the vast majority of the times the positive clustering effect of one al. will overwhelm the other performing bad and not by a kind of 'opposite' way of considering things.

After all predictions are made upon a very restricted field of operation where the main goal is to  get all winnings along the shoe dealt.
Remaining situations, albeit producing more wins than losses at the end of the shoe, are very welcome but considered by the algorithms just as 'incidents'.

More later

as.

For a moment say that the 'average card distribution' is an insane thought, that is just bighorn.sh.it.
So let's compare baccarat with the math beatable black jack.

Ask any serious bj card counting player how many profitable shoes, on average, he/she is going to expect along the way.
Moreover ask the same players whether a strong negative count happening on the initial-intermediate portions of the shoe will provide next favourable positive situations at the same shoe.

Probable answers are in the 12-16% field for the first question and a kind of "very close to zero" about the second one.

So and assuming a fair shuffling, 84%-88% of total shoes distributed produce both an 'average' card distribution or a "negative" unprofitable deviation.
That means that 24%-32% of total shoes are NOT roaming around averages where half of those deviations are profitable and the rest is EV-.

In a word and simplifying the issue, 76%-68% of total shoes are following a low deviation probability that we can condense into the 'average distribution' category.

At baccarat the 'average card distribution' concept still stands even though it's more intricated to be grasped as being a by product of both math and statistical features. 
In some sense algorithms follow what is more likely to happen at that 68%-76% portion of the shoes dealt, at the same time conceding a "possible" valuable room to that half part of 32%-24% deviated distributions not belonging to the average class. Anyway fearing at most negative streaks up to the point that even a single negative spot makes them to stop their action.

Therefore whereas there's a point to bet toward a positive streak as the main goal is always oriented to achieve a homogeneous winning streak per shoe, there are no reasons to 'limit' a negative occurence of any kind.
Actually it's just the (slight less likely) clustering negative appearances that makes this plan profitable.

No precise patterns will make the algorithms to start or stop their action, it's just the actual results pace to make the job and we have two different paces to rely upon.

Algorithms don't guess anything, they just select the spots where more probable sums are formed by adding a previous pattern value with the next unknown pattern value and fortunately they are more right than wrong.

as.

....."it's more intricated to be grasped as being a by product of both math and statistical features.".....

But stress, you never know when it will adhere, appear or disappear.   

Hi AsymBacGuy--I've enjoyed reading your algorithm posts.

"...Good news is that when both algorithms are in action, in the vast majority of the times the positive clustering effect of one al. will overwhelm the other performing bad and not by a kind of 'opposite' way of considering things...."

    Are you applying your algos in real time at a live table?
It also seems your methodology would be a good match for the Stadium Bac live dealer games.I've observed players entering ongoing data into an online app via iphone in real time.


"...Therefore whereas there's a point to bet toward a positive streak as the main goal is always oriented to achieve a homogeneous winning streak per shoe, ...

    I like the above/ much of my game lives/dies on early detection of said streaks.


...there are no reasons to 'limit' a negative occurence of any kind...."

    QQQQ--Please elaborate on this last part.



Thx as always,kfb