AsymBacGuy in post 942:

"...At baccarat things are more restrained than what math dictates as each shoe is a world apart and deeply dependent to the actual card distribution.

Is this a "too general" statement to get a possible advantage from?

Bighorn.sh.it.

Anyone knowing the Smoluchowski's 'probability after effects' concept (not mentioning other statistical tools improving such idea) understands that an event or two (or more) events present sd values way lower than binomial independent models,..."


The key words (Restrained, Dependent) in your above statement are where a lot of players(and mathematicians) tend to have a difference of opinion.
I like to think of it as outcomes (i.e., event streaks) approach limits and these restrictive limits is why one outcome (say a total of 9) will not show 15 consecutive times for one side(P or B),  or why we never hear of P (or B) winning 40 consecutive times...etc.
I know this is an extreme example but IMO every single event outcome is never absolutely 100% independent (in card games such as bac).


Continued Success,

Thanks again for your replies!!!

Very few baccarat experts and players know that overall (both sides) the most likely pattern occurence is...doubles.

Of course this finding collides with perfect binomial independent productions and naturally we need quite of time to get at baccarat the doubles predominance.

Now the issue could be extrapolated and dissected into infinite ways, anyway converging on the main reasons why BB and PP should come out slight more often than not.

Whereas it's theorically and partially difficult to understand why B doubles constitute a large part of the B outcomes, P streaks are mathematically oriented to stop at some point and the least possibility to get a P streak is, a double.

On the other end and assuming a constant math force shifting the results, even single runs (wholly considered at both sides) should be polarized in their long term apparition, but that's not the case.

Empirically we might assign an important (albeit diluted) role to the average shoe composition enhancing streaks stopping after two back-to-back scenarios.

Superior streaks than doubles (starting with triples) follow the same slight propensity and so on.

Think about that: if casinos would fear long streaks happening and such long streaks would be quite frequent to happen, well the game wouldn't exist.
On the other end, system players relying upon such relative improbability to get long streaks would go broke soon as one or more long streaks must happen.

Obviously it's one thing to know what should happen more likely and a completely different thing to decide what to bet at the actual shoe we're playing at.   

Algos rely upon a couple of different back-to-back registrations (in the vast majority of the times things change a lot after a given number of hands dealt) but always in order to get empty slots at given rows.
That is "hoping" to get empty column ranges than 1 at given rows, so discarding all the situations where a determined row is back-to-back filled (no play).

Example.

Say that your plan is to get either one single or one double after any 3(3+) BP streak happened.
If two (or more) consecutive triples show up we stop the plan, waiting for a fresh new 3(3+) streak. And so on.
No way to get an advantage (unless a very deep multilayered progressive scheme is in order).
Things do not appear to be more appealing when 1-gap triples gaps should be followed by larger than 1 'no triples' situations.

Just to give an example situations as 3-1-3-2-3-1-3-3-1-3-2-3 are very rare to happen (that is five isolated losing sequences in a row--in bold). But they happen.

Now let's consider different rhythms of results' classification, so trying to falsify the hypothesis that every registration will be insensitive to the actual production considered random and independent.

Good news is that a possible 4 or 5 losing 1-step clustered range cannot happen after thousands and thousands of shoes examined: in the vast majority of the times (well beyond the math expectancy) 1-step events MUST be followed by larger than 1 gaps.

Superior streaks classes need a more calibrated action to be exploited as further we stay from the singles and doubles appearance higher will be the variance acting.

as.

KFB wrote:

I have often pondered how I could convince the casino to offer a bet on Ties with a rule that high card wins (or low card).

I find particularly interesting this passage, can you elaborate a bit?

Thanks

as.

Transforming bac shoes into codes

This is one of the most important tool we rely upon.
I'm presenting a short sample collected at a LV casino HS room.

After having applied a mechanical random walk stopping the action after some 'boundaries' and restarting it after one positive spot happened (and so on), we transform shoes as sequences of numbers.
Numbers refer to the lenght of clustering effect gaps.
So 1= no cluster, 2= just one cluster (a single back-to-back apparition), 3= a cluster of two consecutive apparitions and so on.
Numbers in brackets mean the last number wasn't precisely defined for the shoe ending up.   

Of course those sequences are not corresponding to an actual play, they just constitute a derived number succession.
Obviously each row is any shoe dealt.

4-6-5-2-1
9-4-1-1
3-3-2-3-3
4-1-2-8-(2)
1-2-1-1-1-6
2-3-1-3-2-(2)
2-2-2-2-1
2-8-7-6
3-2-3-14-2
2-11-2-1-2-7
2-1-2-10-1-5
1-1-1-1-3-2-2
7-2-1-6-5
1-6-1-7-3
13-3-3-1-1
2-1-3-2-8-3-(2)
3-9-1-3
6-1-9-1-9
1-1-13-2-1-4
4-5-2-2-5-5
6-4-1-4-4
2-1-1-2-1-7
6-5-2-1-3
1-8-1-2-6-3
6-2-4-5-5
2-2-5-1-2
3-10-6-8
13-1-1-1
14-16
1-10-7
5-13-1-9
3-3-5-5
7-2-6-3-9
1-8-3-6-5
2-4-16-3
1-6-1-2
3-1-5-1-4
1-1-1-1-1-12-3
2-3-1-1
1-2-5-11
3-2-3-2-1-4
7-10-5-7
5-8-2-1-2-3
7-3-3-2-4-1
2-4-1-5-5-4
6-5-1-3-3
2-3-9-6-2
1-5-5-3-6
3-3-1-5-2-6
3-3-1-6-1
1-2-5-2-2-(2)
6-2-3-3-3-12
3-2-2-4-3-3
2-3-1-10
15-1-3-5-2
11-4-5-4
2-3-2-3-5-1-2
2-1-2-3-2-1-2
6-1-3-6-6-3-4
3-1-1-18
1-5-5-5-1-4
8-1-1-3-2
3-2-1-3-4
4-3-1-2-2
13-1-14
4-4-5-5-(2)
5-4-2-2-5-6
2-10-7-4
7-2-10-2
2-6-5-2-8
1-4-5-10-2
2-2-5-4-2-1-2
4-2-1-2-1-7-1-2
2-1-1-3-1-4
5-2-1-10-2
7-8-8
1-9-7-6
3-4-3-4-7
3-5-1-6-5
1-3-1-6-5-3
8-7-8-4
10-1-1-2
1-6-3-1-3
3-7-14
8-3-2-2-2-2
2-4-6-10
3-1-1-8
2-3-1-7-1-2
11-1-8-5
1-4-3-1-7
3-7-3-2
3-2-2-4-2-6-2
8-2-1-3-1-2
2-1-2-5-5
4-13-2-1
3-2-2-1-4
2-4-3-2
6-1-5-5
3-5-6-2
1-1-1-1-8-4-3
3-2-1-8-2
1-4-4-1-4
2-9-3-6
2-1-1-1-2-3-4
7-3-2-6
2-5-1-1-1-3
7-3-2
12-6-8
7-6-1-5-4
4-4-1-15
2-1-9-6-2
1-4-3-2-2-6
1-2-1-1-5-5
4-1-1-5-5
4-1-1-7-1-2
3-2-2-2-11-2
4-3-1-3-6
15-4-2-1-4
1-1-12-1-1-5
2-3-1-3-2-5
5-2-3-2-2
3-7-1-2
2-3-5-1-1-4
1-3-4-5-9-4

Anyone familiar with my pages knows that I'm assuming a 0.75%/0.25% W/L probability and to simplify the issue we consider the number 1 as -3 unit loss and any other number different than 1 corresponds to +1 unit win.

Despite of being a ridiculous short sample, we think that it could give an idea about how the variance will act and about how to extract an edge.
In poorer words, we'are deadly sure to expect worse or better scenarios, yet this is what happened at the premise we've played at.

More later

as. 

You've seen those outcomes, so it's relatively difficult to spot the "more likely" patterns coming around and definitely some shoes are collecting huge sd values (e.g. consider the 1-1-1-1-8-4-3 shoe or the 4-1-1-7-1-2 shoe).
Naturally I'd assume that you consider 1s as negative situations and greater than 1s as positive events.

Thus we have instructed our algos to "understand" that we can't rely upon a "general" more likely line as each shoe is a world apart, so when a 1 come out their action will be somewhat restrained or stopped.

Let's measure such real live shoes codes:

34 times out of 123 scenarios (shoes) no one 1 came around, so 27.64% (instead of 25%) of shoes dealt formed all winning numbers. It means that way more than 1/4 of the spots haven't provided a single loss.

22 times 1s came out clustered (1-1..) and 85 time as isolated (1-greater number than 1), so even here the expected 1:3 ratio wan't respected (79.43% instead of 75%).

Even by taking into account a 'positional' back-to-back shoes featuring a given number and assuming 6 steps at a 6-possible number code we got:

First number being 1 (-3) and every other number (+1) = +27 units

Second number: +15 units

Third number: -55 units 

Fourth number: +16 units

Fifth number. +8 units

Sixth number: +27 units

Overall it's a +38 unit profit (before vig) where algos entice our action.

It's important to notice that algos are sensitive to positional results, in our example not suggesting any bet at the third number being too deviated from the norm.

In addition, note that here 5 out of 6 positional spots will make us a profit and of course when a proper random walk is acting we'll be more entitled to get a win than a loss as more numbers greater than 1 are expected to show up than the counterpart.
(A good idea would be to get rid of the positional number getting worse results, but I do not want to complicate the issue).

Next I'll present other shoe samples belonging to the same shuffling category transformed into codes.

as.

Willing to listen-willing to think-willing to realize what can happen.

"However.........But............might not, but always a possibility".

First of all, most everyone discounts what might happen because of lack of probability.  And in my opinion, that is dead wrong in the game of Baccarat. However............But............in baccarat anything and everything CONTINUOUSLY' lays in wait.

Why did I say, "that is dead wrong in the game of baccarat?  Because we play the short term, not the long term. 

If you sit and watch, you might very well miss great events by refusing to wager.  What can happen(?), a steak of 14 Bankers immediately followed by 9 Players, immediately followed by a series of 8 chop-chop singles and then 6 doubles of each Bankers and Players.  Or, maybe something ugly, such as a few singles, a single streak of 8 and then all 1s, 2s and 3s with every wager you attempt on the wrong side, etc., etc.

What so many people do not, or will never recognize is the minimum and maximum numbers versus real numbers.

For the math freaks there is something called 'Set Theory'.  But, that can only apply if there are no 'reality numbers'.

In mathematical analysis, the maximum and minimums of a function are, respectively, the largest and smallest value taken by the function. Known generically as extremum, they may be defined either within a given range (the local or relative extrema) or on the entire domain (the global or absolute extrema) of a function. >>>But not how each hand will be presented from each shoe.<<<

As defined in set theory, the maximum and minimum of a set are the greatest and least elements in the set, respectively. Unbounded infinite sets, such as the set of real numbers, have no minimum or maximum.

In statistics, the corresponding concept is the sample maximum and minimum.  Please Note:  Statistics are a theoretical sampling of 80 hands of Baccarat, played out approximately 1,000,000 times. 80,000,000 hands and then each minimum and maximum result figured out for whatever valued defined, etc. 

So in reality and more importantly, in relationship to wager at the game, you can have maximum and minimum in statistical analysis.  However............But............in the game of baccarat and how each and every shoe will present its presentments, 80 + - times a shoe, will be 'real numbers'. 

And 'Real Numbers' have zero corresponding adherence to statistical results the highest of the highest amount of times.  And more likely, IMO the relationships, if any, can safely be classified as coincidental rather than statistical presentment.

AsymBacGuy reply to my post above:

"...KFB wrote:

I have often pondered how I could convince the casino to offer a bet on Ties with a rule that high card wins (or low card).

I find particularly interesting this passage, can you elaborate a bit?
  ..."

I was just making a general comment on how the casino benefits from offering more /more bonus bets as these hedges weaken our placement of an EV+ wager. Especially when we can't win all bets on a single outcome but the casino can. I commonly see players wager all of three or four bonus bets along with a Tie, and then at the last second toss out a wager on a Side bet(P or B). IMO there are more optimum methods to win consistently(& most certainly wagers with a lower SD).

Re: Ties--I see a lot of players constantly wager a side wager(P or B) along with the Tie(which pays 8:1 in my casino markets). So a Tie bettor is not only wagering on a lesser quality bet but also hedging the side bet(We can't win both).

Re:Tie bet--Its certainly countable, however, at an 8:1 payout my opinion is that one would find more value counting another bonus wager such as Panda8 or Dragon7,...etc. If you are fortunate enough to play in a market that offers 9:1 on Tie bet then I would be a little more interested in Tie wagers.

"IF" I was going to put forth alot of effort counting Ties(@ 9:1) I would just make that my main wager(only wager if possible). Yet again the casinos(most) require one to also place a side wager(P or B) for the opportunity to wager a T, or any bonus wager. Most cas don't allow capping your neighbor's wager (At least in my market the capping is not allowed).


My earlier thought in above post: "I have often pondered how I could convince the casino to offer a bet on Ties with a rule that high card wins (or low card). ..."

None of my casinos offer such a wager/ I haven't seen anywhere in USA. Possibly offered in other countries or @ online casinos. However, if they did offer such a layout it would be very countable(& potentially lucrative) wager. Depending on the payout I would likely focus on the Low Tie.

Re: Tie Bettors.
I have encountered only one single player that uses the Tie bet as his bread/butter approach. He tracks/counts a few things. He hasn't given me the "secret ingredient" to his recipe (Nor have I asked). However, I'm guessing he tracks face cards and maybe even numbers too(0,2,4,..etc), and waits for a certain threshold count# is hit before wagering. Only wagering when the count is EV+ ,...etc.
When I play with him, I do allot a few wagers from my buyin to wager a T when and if he likes the setup(Often in the latter stages of the shoe), and typically only <=2-4 times per shoe.

*Note I have never pursued or researched or studied Tie wagers much so maybe something out there with the T bet that I do not know.



Continued Success,

Thanks for your thoughts Al!

I've always thought that to ascertain a possible advantage, we have to measure it even though it could be affected by levels of imperfection due to several causes (variance, shuffling procedures, etc).

IMO only numbers could help to understand if there are vulnerable spots to take advantage from and of course the numbers I've provided are real numbers as those were shoes we put our money at.

As already sayed, algos 'approximate' a supposedly more likely flow of the outcomes at certain (few) determined spots by comparing several parameters that must converge into an univocal B or P bet placement.

as.

Here another sample of real live shoes coming from a CSM transformed into codes:

2-3-6-5-1-1
10-1-4-12
6-4-2-3-2-1
2-1-3-4-2-8
6-4-1-5-1-4
3-2-3-2-1-6
4-9-5-8
2-7-7-3-2
6-1-3-5-5-5
1-3-1-4-2-1-2
2-1-7-2-2-1
2-1-4-1-9-5
6-3-1-3-7
5-2-5-6-6-4
4-5-3-1-2-7
1-21-2-1-6
2-9-3-4-4
4-4-3-1-1-1-3
7-1-1-4-4
3-1-2-3-1-1
2-4-3-2-3-2
7-3-3-4-8
2-5-1-2-4
1-1-5-2-5
1-1-4-5-1-1-3
4-4-7-4
4-1-1-2-3-1
1-1-3-1-2
8-1-4-2-4
4-6-6-2-2
2-6-1-4-2-2
3-2-10-3-5
1-1-2-2-3-3-3
9-14-5-1
2-7-3-8-2
4-1-1-5-2-1
2-5-3-7-1-3
3-12-4
17-4-3-1
7-9-3-6-1
3-5-1-4-9
7-2-2-3-2-1
3-3-3-20
1-1-2-8-1-4
2-2-4-3-1-4
1-2-2-3-6
9-5-3-5
6-10-7-9
6-4-3-1
1-2-2-7-11
2-1-2-2-1-7
3-2-3-2-5-8
17-2-2-5-6
4-2-1-1-1-1
1-1-3-1-2-1-4
2-1-1-5-2-5-5
2-13-8-7
4-1-9-1-9
10-6-9
2-4-1-3-1-9
1-4-2-5-15
3-2-5-5-2
1-4-5-4-1-3
4-2-1-6-3
3-2-6-1-14
1-7-1-2-1-1
3-4-2-3-1-5
3-1-17
9-5-1-8-2
10-1-1-5
1-3-2-4-2
13-1-3-2
7-2-2-13-1
4-8-5-10
1-2-2-13
2-1-1-4-2
2-1-4-6-2
2-2-4-7-3-1-1
5-4-2-2-13
4-2-1-4-5-1
1-1-2-2-4-1-3
1-4-4-5-11
3-4-6-2-4
1-10-5-1-2
3-8-7-5-3
1-6-1-2-8-3-3
3-5-1-16
7-1-1-3-6
1-2-2-9-1
3-7-6-3-4
2-1-4-2-1
14-4
2-13-1-1
2-2-9-5-4
3-2-3-6
4-1-2-1-6-1
1-2-7-13
7-3-9
2-5-3-1-1
1-11-3-2
4-1-1-5-4
5-14-6
1-4-6-10
11-1-2-6
1-4-7-5
2-2-1-1-9

Reference 'Real Numbers':

Not only what you said, actual shoes played, etc., but Real Numbers to me, are those numbers that happen.  Not the millions of numbers from stat research. 

Real Numbers are those within each shoe at the table.  All the other numbers really do not matter. 

On the lighter side, if girls with big boobs work at Hooters, where do girls with only one leg work at?  IHOP.
(International House of Pancakes).

The CSM statistically insignificant sample (but we played such shoes) provided:

Out of 124 shoes, 36 shoes haven't shown up a single 1 (29.03%, expected range=25%) and 88 of them one or more 1s (70.96%, expected range 75%).

Out of the classificable isolated or clustered 1s (91), 66 1s came out as isolated and 25 1s as clustered.
At this CSM sample the slight propensity surpassing the 3:1 ratio at the previous sample evaporated as a proportional greater amount of 1s clusters came out (27.47% vs an expected range of 25%; isolated 1s 72.51% vs 75%).

Positional events (1s vs superior numbers) went like this:

First number = +10 units

Second number = -14 units

Third number = +6 units

Fourth number = +32 units

Fifth number = +7 units

Sixth number = -31 units

Overall a +10 units

The point is that regardless of the shuffling method, a general propensity (1s<than superior numbers) constantly acts, all other intermediate patterns need evaluations made on the previous patterns.
It's the card clumping factor. In fact at this sample, a way greater amount of huge numbers than the previous sample came out that must be balanced in some way along the same shoe.
Not everytime but most of the times.

Algos do recommend to play towards huge numbers (up to 6-8) only at the CSM productions: at this sample just 25 shoes haven't provided at least a 6 or superior number (nearly 20% of all shoes dealt).

Moreover each positional column roaming far from the 0 sum will be more likely followed by a column providing a positive sum, no matter what's the actual shuffle.

Then there's the specific streaks lenght tool.

as.

Quote from: alrelax on January 09, 2024, 10:54:00 PMOn the lighter side, if girls with big boobs work at Hooters, where do girls with only one leg work at?  IHOP.
(International House of Pancakes).

LOL 

What about IHOP hiring girls with one leg but getting big boobs?
 
as. 

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on January 10, 2024, 12:50:31 AMLOL 

What about IHOP hiring girls with one leg but getting big boobs?
 
as. 

Can't top that, lol!

Now let's consider the same CSM sample from a specific lenght clusters factor.

Algo #1 random walk will suggest a bet towards 2-3 streaks clusters vs 2 or 3 streaks isolated situations.

W-W-W
W-W-W
W-L-W
W-L-W-W
W-W-L
L-L-W-W
L-W-W
W-W-W
W-W-L-W
L-W-L-W
W-W-W
W-L-W
W-L-W
W-W-W
W-L-W
L-W-L
W-W
W-W-W
W-W-L-W-L
L-L-W
L-L-W-W-W
W-W-L
W-W-W-L
W-L-W
W-W-W
W-L-W
W-W-W
W-W-W
W-W
W-W
L-W-W
W-W
L-L-W-W-L
W-L
W-W-W
W-L-W-W
W-W-W-W
W-W-W
W-L-W-W
W-L
W-W-W
W-W-W
L-L-W
W-W
L-W-W
L-W-L-W
W-L-L-W
W-W-W
W-W-W
L-W-W
W-W-W
L-W-W-W
L-W-W-W
W-W
W-W-W
W-L-W-L-L-W
L-L-L-W-W
W-W
W-W
W-L-L-W
L-L-L-W
W-W-W
L-W-W
W-W-W-W
W-W-L-W
W-W
W-L-W-W
W-W-W-W
W
W-W-W
W-W-L-W
W-W-L-W
W-L-L-W
W-W-L
W-W
W-L-W-L
W-L-L-W
W-L-W
W-W-W-W-W
W-W-W
W-W-W
W-L-L-W
W-W-W
W-W-W-W
L-W-W-W
W-L
W-W
L-L-W-W
W-W-W
L-L-W-W
W
W-W-W-L-W
W-W
L-W-L-L
L-L-L-L-W
L-W-W
W-W
L-L-L-W
W-W
W-W-L
L-W
W-L-L-L
W-W
W-W
W
W-W
W-L-W

Now the same strategy using 2 s and 4s (3s considered irrelevant)

W
W
W-W
W-W
W
W-W
W
L-W-L
W-W
L-W
W-W
L-W
L-W
L-W-W
W-W
W-L-L-W
W
W
W-W
W-L-W
W-W
W-W
W
W-W
L-W-W
W-W
W-W-W
W
W
W-W
W-L-L
W-W
W
W
W-W
L-W
W-W
W-W
L-L-W
W-W-W
L-W-W-W
W-W
L-W-W
W-W
W-W
W-W-W
W-L-W
W-L-W
W
W-W
W-W-W-L-W-W
L-W
W-W
W-W-W
W-W
W-W
W
W-W
W-W
W-W
W
W-W
W
W-W
W-L-W
W
W-W
W-W
L-W-W
W-W-L-W
W-W-W
W-W
W
W
W
L-W-W
W
W
W
W-W
W-W
W-W
W
W-W
W-L-W
W-W-W
W-W
L-W-W
L-L-W
W-L-W
W-W-W
W-W
W
W-W
W-W
L-L-W
W-W
L-L-W-W
W-W
W-W
L-W-L-W
W-W
W-L-W
W-L
L-W
W-W
W-W-L
W-W-W
W
W-W
L-W-W

Now 3s and 4s (next)

as.