Highlighted => AsymBacGuy => Topic started by: AsymBacGuy on June 28, 2019, 09:10:24 pm
Title: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on June 28, 2019, 09:10:24 pm
Gambling experts as well as casino's supervisors are really laughing when they read all the bighornshit we're writing about baccarat on the net. Not mentioning the miriad of magical system sellers that for just $49.99 promise us millionaire profits.
As long as we can't (or we do not want to) demonstrate a verifiable math edge we are just fooling ourselves and the world.
That means that all efforts made to find exploitable ways to beat the house are totally worthless, confirmed by the huge profits casinos make by offering bac tables.
Probably the best player ever known in the history of baccarat was Akio Kashiwagi, a japanese real estate guru who put in some trouble mr D. Trump who gladly accepted very huge bets from him at one of his AC property. It's ascertained Kashiwagi adopted a kind of trend following strategy by wagering a kind of flat betting approach. That is he knew very well that in order to beat a game, tax apart, one must get more winning hands than losing ones. Furthermore, by flat betting he knew he was going to lose around 1% at worst. Naturally Trump took advice from the best math gambling expert of the time who suggested to let him play as long as possible in order to get the negative edge fully working against him.
And actually this thing happened even though Kashiwagi (that was shot dead shortly afterwards) was still ahead in the process.
Of course even if Kashiwagi played a quite huge amount of hands but not enough to constitute a "long term" scenario by any means, we must give him some credit that his strategy was good.
To get a clearer example of what Kashiwagi did, try to flat bet 60/70 shoes and let us know how many bets you are winning or losing. Knowing that he wagered a large amount of hands dealt, the answer will be very likely placed on the negative side.
Therefore a question #1 arises: does a sophisticated trend following strategy lower in some way the math negative edge? Was K. playing a kind of trend following strategy mixed with something else?
I have chosen to mention A.K. as it's my firm belief that in order to win one must spot more W than L situations as no progression could get the best of it when L<W, especially when wagering a lot of hands per shoe.
Truth to be told, I do not think that a strict trend following strategy could get the best of it, but I tend not to disregard such possibility at least in order to lower the negative edge.
More to come.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on July 09, 2019, 09:38:27 pm
Indeed Kashiwagi was a brilliant player but he didn't fit to the "pros" category.
Undoubtedly around the globe there are few people who make a living by playing baccarat and they like to go unnoticed for obviuos reasons. They are not there for gambling but to win. And not to win astronomical sums but to win. Consistently. It's funny (euphemism) that such people wager very few spots or at least using a large spread on certain hands giving to the house the illusion of action. Many do not care a bit about comps, they pretend not to know what a player's card is. They do not want their play to be registered.
Despite of what many could think, casinos do not like baccarat winners and generally speaking they adopt an old statement telling that any player being ahead after playing 80 hours isn't welcome as in some way he/she surpassed the "math" test. Well, baccarat is an unbeatable game but we never know. We (casinos) expect to win and we do want to win. Period.
The common trait of those players is they wager very few hands, almost always quitting the table after getting relatively small profits and, most importantly, they don't like to chase losses. In the sense that after two or three losses in a row they tend to lose interest to that shoe.
It's like they are playing a kind of blackjack card counting strategy. Selecting the spots to bet, look at the outcome and keep the results whatever they are. That is a complete different approach made by most bac players worldwide.
Now let's take the casino's part. We know that some successful bj $20-$80 spread bet counters are going to be barred, what about the possibility that bac can be beaten by bets of $400, $500 or more? After all so far every math expert says such thing isn't possible. Actually only side bets can be beaten mathematically.
That's the worst assumption they can make as their only hope to win money at bac tables remains upon the probability that most bac players like to gamble, that is betting a lot of hands and trying to guess the unguessable. Or that the game can be beaten by progressions.
Remember that if any side bet is beatable, BP bets are more beatable. It's only up to us.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: Babu on July 10, 2019, 06:03:26 am
Indeed baccarat can be beat in the long run. This is what I have been waiting to hear. Many spend a life time trying to find strategies to beat every shoe and guess every single hand. Once can actually win without any strategy as long as they have a good approach.
One can randomly guess and use random size bets. Leave when one is up and recover when down. It takes great discipline. Key is a huge bankroll and reasonable win expectation.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on July 12, 2019, 08:11:04 pm
Indeed baccarat can be beat in the long run. This is what I have been waiting to hear. Many spend a life time trying to find strategies to beat every shoe and guess every single hand. Once can actually win without any strategy as long as they have a good approach.
One can randomly guess and use random size bets. Leave when one is up and recover when down. It takes great discipline. Key is a huge bankroll and reasonable win expectation.
Actually it's quite likely the few who make a living at this game adopt this strategy as any serious player knows that it's literally impossible to beat every single shoe or hand. I mean that even getting a verified math advantage of 2% one is going to endure inevitable harsh losing sessions.
Anyway the conclusive word would come whenever we find a long term edge by flat betting and obviously this conclusion must be strictly intended as a randomness defect. There are no other ways to get an edge if we are playing a perfect "random" math negative game.
I got the confidence that around 80% of total live shoes are not properly shuffled or that they present intrinsic card distribution flaws, it's up to us to find how and when those features could help us.
Good post Babu.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on July 14, 2019, 09:09:19 pm
The theory according to which we should beat this wondeful silly game is quite simple: even though the negative math edge remains constant, the probability of success on certain spots will be higher than expected. This supposedly raised probability is caused by many factors:
- bad shuffles - actual asym/sym hands ratio - asym hands outcomes - nature of winning points - strong points winning or losing - key cards producing or not a winning hand - actual finite distribution related to the expected long term distribution - other
In some way this theory aims to take advantage of the past in order to partially estimate the future. Easy to see that generally speaking the more was the past assessed, better will be the chances to guess the future.
After all we need to guess right just very few spots.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on July 15, 2019, 01:55:00 am
The partial unrandomness of the shoe is the main reason why we could beat this game itlr.
Such conclusion may be deduced empirically or by strict scientific methods, of course most players use the first approach as it takes a quite long work to demonstrate scientifically that any single LIVE shoe isn't true randomly generated.
Since the definition of real randomness is a complex and very debated subject and 312 or 416 cards working into an asymmetrical physical finite model cannot be properly shuffled by any means, we know for sure that most of our bets are placed into a non perfect random world.
A pretty exhaustive proof comes from putting in motion dozens of "random walks" applied to the same outcomes springing from the same shoe and then repeating the process for the next shoes.
Therefore what we tend to classify as a "normal deviation" happening into a single shoe is instead a unrandom product working at various degrees.
It's quite surprisingly that some successful players I know can ascertain that by just watching at what is happening, still the common denominator (without exception) is that they play very few hands.
People who make a living at games want to wager upon the probability that something isn't going to happen and not that distant probabilities come in their favor.
We see that the goal to make a tiny profit per a given series of shoes isn't a so appealing task to most bac players. That's why they are entitled to lose forever and fortunately this is the reason why the game is still alive.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: alrelax on July 15, 2019, 05:50:58 pm
Any of the table games can have a tiny profit more often than a larger one. Of course, 'tiny' and 'larger' or both subjective to whatever amount each player is dealing with. But for comparison, say buying in with $1,000.00 playing with $25.00/$50.00 wagers would be relatively easier to walk away quickly with a $50.00 or even a $100.00 win than it would be to walk away with a $2,500.00 or a $3,000.00 win wagering the same amounts.
Of course as you mentioned, problems arise when the players repeatably wager for additional wins consistently using whatever method of wagering they are subscribing to, etc.
The larger the wins, the larger the wagering units---usually lead most players to attempting the continued win or additional wins within a relatively short period of time after the initial session wins. Easy to talk about here, harder to realize when you are table side and engaged in wagering as Lungyeh pointed out previously.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on July 18, 2019, 09:27:05 pm
You are absolutely correct.
The main problem is that we can't expect to get consistent profits from a negative edge game, let alone huge profits. What we can do is trying to exploit the game's flaws and, fortunately, there are many of them.
Math needs some time to fully take its power, we should act in the same way by opposite reasons.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on July 20, 2019, 02:06:01 am
One thing for sure.
The probability to win itlr playing a random EV- game (even if taking into account that bac is a finite and card dependent propositon) is zero.
There's no way to "read randomness", maybe to grasp some hints about the partial unrandomness of the game.
Only unrandomness, when properly assessed, could enlarge the probablity of success on certain spots. And the best way to estimate such possible unrandomness is to study several different random walks applied to the main outcomes.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on July 30, 2019, 09:08:05 pm
One of the best tool to confirm or deny that this game is really beatable is to put on one side a real live bettor and on the other one a mechanical player who places the bets in a perfect randomly fashion (for example wagering B if the previous first card hand was red or P if it was black). Of course the first player will get a slight less disadvantage if he happen to bet only Banker side but we know this isn't the strategy to win itlr. So we assume that even the first player will proportionally place his bets 50/50.
Mathematicians, experts, etc, will say there will be no difference in the final outcomes of both players. That means that both players build two different random walks getting the same long term disadvantage.
Therefore the only way to suppose a possible edge of player #1 is to study the hands distribution, trying to grasp hints of the previous outcomes in order to guess future hands by a better than 50/50 ratio. In a word, player #1 tries to partially transform a random game into a unrandom game, a luxury denied to player #2 who must "passively" place his bets.
Now say that besides his own plan, the first player can take into account what happens to player #2. Considering each shoe, most of the times player #2 outcomes will flow with relatively low pattern deviations, in few situations player #2 will find himself into a strong positive or negative territory.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on July 31, 2019, 01:06:21 am
I know that eminent experts as M. Shakleford, E. Jacobsen, J. May are laughing at me when I'm presenting those ideas, but I can assure you by 1 trillion certainty that this fkng game can be beat on B/P hands with an astounding positive edge.
Simply put, they do not know what to look for.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: Albalaha on July 31, 2019, 09:50:38 am
@Asymbacguy, If you can play with any logic that can be told and made to understand to others too, it can be tested, programmed and played mechanically too. If you play with any gifted capacity of precognition that you are unable to transfer to others, it can neither be transferred nor anybody else can imitate ever. So, let us all know in which way, you "think" it is beatable?
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: BEAT-THE-WHEEL on July 31, 2019, 01:18:58 pm
Gentlemen, I think the keyword,
"be patient and wait for the probabilities to work..."
Thus a pro will wait, or play flat bet..virtually, til harsh losing or "harsh winning ", happened, that against the math holy HE....say, 5, 6, 7, or 10% winning or losing... and then bet the reversed, faithfully for that harsh to succumbed to the holy math house edge
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on August 08, 2019, 10:35:22 pm
@Asymbacguy, If you can play with any logic that can be told and made to understand to others too, it can be tested, programmed and played mechanically too. If you play with any gifted capacity of precognition that you are unable to transfer to others, it can neither be transferred nor anybody else can imitate ever. So, let us all know in which way, you "think" it is beatable?
The logic is pretty simple but quite complicated to be put in practice. And unfortunately I can't read randomness, the only one capable to do that is gizmotron.
No one mechanical system can work into an EV- game unless is capable to pass all the "unfortunate" situations that could come along after thousands and thousands of trials. Nonetheless we know for sure that a large part of different random walks will be winners at the end of the shoe. We do not know how much they will be winners but they surely will.
On the other end and for obvious reasons, on average a larger random walks part is going to lose no matter what.
Have to run. later.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on August 09, 2019, 08:48:01 pm
Only people featuring two neurons but no neurotrasmitter could think to beat a EV- random game (Junketamine King is the first on the list). Especially if such people keep thinking that every single baccarat decision will be a random 50/50 proposition.
That's why one of the best tools we could use is to put in action several random walks working by different parameters, this in order to really ascertain if the outcomes' distribution is really random or not.
It's mathematicallly certain that only unrandom distributions working into a EV- game can be beaten itlr.
And it's funny to see that some (rare) brilliant players have realized that empirically just by long term observations.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on August 11, 2019, 09:01:31 pm
Randomness definition is a quite complicated issue, many think that flipping a fair coin is a valid example of randomness but it isn't.
The real problem gamblers have to face is to ascertain whether the outcomes are simple products of a random unbeatable generation or if they are affected in some way by unrandom features.
Of course and that's where the problem stands, itlr different unrandom generations tend to converge forming random results. So we can easily think that a long succession of different baccarat results will fall no distant from the expected values. And this conclusion is totally correct.
Moreover, it's a total waste of time to think to beat a so called perfect random software production (baccarat buster, etc) or, even worse, to test a given method into a succession of live outcomes coming out from different sources.
For obvious reasons, a possible unrandomness should be always assessed in a situation where a large number of constant parameters is fulfilled. The final decisive role is played by key cards distribution and nothing else. And since any card counting tool isn't going to give us any help, we must put in action several r.w. that must reflect such distribution, even though being approximated.
In conclusion, baccarat is beatable if we can estimate at a decent value that the shoe we're playing is affected by some unrandomness, otherwise we are losing money.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: alrelax on August 12, 2019, 01:59:13 am
"The real problem gamblers have to face is to ascertain whether the outcomes are simple products of a random unbeatable generation or if they are affected in some way by unrandom features."
Absolutely!
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on August 22, 2019, 09:31:19 pm
In few days I'll try to explain how a possible unrandomness could be the key to beat this game.
If you think that baccarat could be beaten you are reading the right pages.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on August 30, 2019, 09:10:38 pm
Instead of thinking about outcomes we should focus about cards distribution. Do not forget that a large portion of hands will be resolved by the first four cards dealt alternatively. For example, if we could bet about getting at least a natural point on either side this game wouldn't exist as a large part of hands will be determined right after the first cards are dealt. We do not know which side will be kissed by such natural but we know that more than 1/3 of the time this event will happen. Notice that when a natural will land, the game is a perfect coin flip proposition, meaning that there's no point to bet Banker. That is we're betting a zero negative edge game either on Player bets and on Banker bets at EZ tables.
Of course naturals are more likely when formed by a ten-8 or ten-9 combination than by the other card possibilities and 8s and 9s favor Banker only when dealt as fifth card (asym hands). Therefore when we think that the next four cards will contain at least one of the possible 64 8s/9s, we know that it's more likely to get a natural.
Now, each of the all possible 64 cards rank will be distributed asymmetrically and the more such asymmetricity will be present better is the probability to assess their impact over the next outcomes. And aces, 2s or 3s, for example, will involve a larger less impact than other key cards because they are going to produce more drawing hands than standing hands. No way itlr a drawing hand will be favorite to win, especially at Player side. But as players we are forced to work into an infinite succession of finite distributions.
After long tests made on live shoes compared to pc generated shoes, we've found that the more the key ranks are asymmetrically distributed, better are the chances to guess which side will be favorite to win on very few spots.
It's like as a given pattern should be more due than expected and obviously such thing cannot happen per every shoe dealt.
Thus the main problem is concentrated to spot the shoes which are really playable and neglect those which aren't. And the fortune of casinos is that 99.99% of bac players want to guess every shoe dealt no fkng matter what.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on August 31, 2019, 01:43:24 am
Itlr key cards are dealt asymmetrically by any means. Itlr drawing hands and standing/naturals points are dealt asymmetrically by any means.
Itlr any four card point higher than the opposite four card point is going to win by a nearly 2:1 ratio and, of course, is dealt asymmetrically.
Itlr any third card helping or not the Player side is dealt asymmetrically and the same is true about the sixth card.
Besides the original increasing order made manually, per any deck different ranks are dealt asymmetrically.
Baccarat is a game of constant asymmetricity working at different values.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: Dilon on September 01, 2019, 01:53:46 am
Nice Asym! Please continue.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on September 01, 2019, 09:11:48 pm
Hi Dilon, thanks! ;)
Let's take the shoe as a succession of fresh decks, the card distribution is A,2,3,4,5....K We'll deal the cards in a baccarat game.
First hand: Player A, 3 Banker 2,4 drawing card is 5. Player wins by 9 over B 6. Second hand: Player 6, 8 Banker 7, 9. drawing card is a 10. Banker wins with a 6. Third hand: Player J, K Banker Q, A. Drawing cards are 2 and 3. Banker wins with 4 vs P 2. Fourth hand: Player 4, 6 Banker 5, 7. drawing cards are 8 and 9. Player wins with 8 vs 1. Fifth hand: Player 10, Q banker J, K. Drawing cards are A and 2. Banker wins with 2 vs 1. Sixth hand: Player 3,5 Banker 4,6. Player wins by a natural 8. Seventh hand: 7, 9 Banker 8, 10 Banker wins with a natural 8. Eight hand: Player J, K Banker Q-A Drawing cards are 2 and 3. Banker wins with 4 vs 2. After this hand the process repeats infinitely up to the end of the shoe.
Let's see what happened in those eight hands:
P B B P B P B B
We see that only hand #2 produced an asymmetrical hand and such probability is way larger than expected (12.5% vs the real 8.4%).
The increasing rank order of the deck of course helps the side acting last (Banker) but it's more interesting to notice what an homogeneous rank distribution (13/13) will act in terms of outcomes even though the cards are not featuring a perfect increasing order.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: Lungyeh on September 02, 2019, 04:02:17 am
Bro, I really tried to comprehend your approach over the years but truth be told, it?s intellectually beyond me.
From your examples given, in real life could you predict what card sequences will take place in the subsequent hand and then bet accordingly?
Please forgive me ignorance. Stay blessed, you and yours
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on September 09, 2019, 08:55:16 pm
Hi dear Lungyeh.
Imo and according to my studies there are only two kind of favourable card distributions for the players:
- an astounding homogeneously rank distribution or
- a heavy key cards distribution shifting to one side.
Notice that I'm not talking about real outcomes as itsr (in the short run) they could take whimsical shapes. Thus I'm focusing about ranks and key cards. Everything falling in between will act in house's favor itlr, no matter if we are lucky, geniuses or whatever.
Now, it's virtually impossible to physically put ranks and key cards for long not belonging to one of those two categories, a thing that only a software can do.
Fortunately at the time I'm writing CSM and manually shuffled shoes can't refrain to produce favourable card distributions, especially CSM as when the same deck is "biased" it remains biased for at least 2-3 more shoes. Of course that doesn't mean that the same deck is going to produce the same outcomes' lines.
At high stakes rooms where each deck is fresh, house will get a higher advantage over the players and it's not a coincidence that some serious players want to bet very few hands or not at all if things are not fitting their plan.
We can bet everything we have on our name that it's quite easy to spot the players who make a living at this game: they perfectly adhere to the black jack rule where no mid-entry is allowed as they'll join the table from the start.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on September 11, 2019, 09:07:04 pm
Dr B. Kaiser magistrally stated in his book that people who make their living at numbers are always more comfortable dealing with the high likelihood of something's not happening than the slim chance of a rare event's occurring
In some sense, rarity works for casinos as give the players the illusion to beat the game (bac players like to bet toward long homogenous situations) and common events work for serious and patient players unless rarity come out.
Therefore in order to consistently win we must restrict the rarity appearance trying to take advantage of the most likely situations.
And only an accurate card distribution study could help us to define better the issue.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on September 20, 2019, 08:52:40 pm
I know at least a dozen of players making a living at this game and the common trait is they make very few bets. Some of them know a 0.1% of what me and you know about the game, yet they are long term winners. Mathematically this move is sound. Since the game remains EV-, the probability to be ahead of something will be higher when betting very few hands, say that the best move is to wager everything only one time. If in this precise instant every bac player in the world will wager Banker, casinos will lose money as B>P even though Banker is payed less than 1:1. After this hypothetical hand, casinos will win money no matter what. Obviously if casinos will lose money, players will get something of it.
And altogether obvious is the fact that the more we stay and play the better we are liked by casinos.
Ask the casinos if they would like to fade ten $20.000 wagers made on ten different occasions or if they'd like more ten $20k hands made on the same session. Mathematically it doesn't change their expectation. In practical terms this simple different approach means a lot.
More on that later.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: alrelax on September 22, 2019, 01:46:36 pm
I know at least a dozen of players making a living at this game and the common trait is they make very few bets. Some of them know a 0.1% of what me and you know about the game, yet they are long term winners. (Anything is possible, simpler is easier. However, as you and most other know, I have written extensively about the casinos, the psych, the downfalls, the players mind frames and control, etc., etc. Lots of things come into play and yet, very few of us realize what actually influence us in making decisions at the table. One of the easiest and most successful betting selections in Bac is 3 and out. Waiting for that 3rd repeat B or P and wagering for the cut. If a person has a decent bank roll, he can snatch up so many 3 or even 4 and outs, than probably anything else, IMO at the Bac table. But of course the person must be prepared to do a negative Marty for one or two or three or four additional bets. Coming up across a 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 or 11 repeating B or P streak is usually not the case in every shoe. Agreed? However it does happen and if a person proceeds to do a negative Marty against same, it is easily a wipe out and hard and long to make up the loss. Each of us play different and each of us have different experiences and thoughts on the game.)
Mathematically this move is sound. Since the game remains EV-, the probability to be ahead of something will be higher when betting very few hands, say that the best move is to wager everything only one time. (Yes fewer is better for the base win and a win of chips for a person to feel good about and play off of, but all that depends once again, on frame of mind, control, expectations and overall psych of the player. Again, so much comes into play and contributes to the persons thought process, not just the bet selection. We are all or at least most of us, influenced by numerous things at the table. Easy to talk about here, harder at the table to apply it all and walk with small or initial winnings.)
If in this precise instant every bac player in the world will wager Banker, casinos will lose money as B>P even though Banker is payed less than 1:1. ( What do you mean paid less? Are you referring to 5% commission? If you are, not very hard to find an EZ Bac, or other commission free game any longer in most all casinos in the USA. Some do not have that but across the street or down the street does.)
After this hypothetical hand, casinos will win money no matter what. (Depends on how long and how intense and what the persons goals are in playing. The player (if this is what you are referring to) that plays relentlessly for the pot of gold each and every time, will lose far greater than what he will win if he plays long hours, every day, day in and day out, IMO. There might be a very trivial few that can survive long hours at a casino each and every day, and win or at least break even on a long tern and a consistent everyday basis. Again, IMO.)
Obviously if casinos will lose money, players will get something of it. (Please see the attached link. Of course some will come on here and other boards, coping and pasting detailed defenses to what I am about to post, but no one knows the financial position of the players. Some might have lost far greater than those wins and yet others, might be ahead of the game. It depends on a persons wagering amounts and time played in comparison to your wins and losses. Unfortunately for most all players, I DID NOT SAY ALL, I said most all, will wager larger and harder once they begin to lose a session and that is their downfall. As well, the have almost zero management skills as to current and instant win money they happened to capitalize on).
And altogether obvious is the fact that the more we stay and play the better we are liked by casinos. (Yes, and that is the huge suck in and hold for most players, especially their first several years of playing.)
Ask the casinos if they would like to fade ten $20.000 wagers made on ten different occasions or if they'd like more ten $20k hands made on the same session. (It does not matter to the casino. They account for it by the table min. Most places, I SAID MOST, so people do not challenge, the average table min for a $20k wager is going to be $300 to $500. Some casino properties might be different, but the average goes, $25/$50 to $5,000, $100 to $10k, $200 to $15k, $300/$500 to $20k/$25k off the street no front money table limits. There are some properties that might vary, but that is the average).
Mathematically it doesn't change their expectation. In practical terms this simple different approach means a lot.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on September 22, 2019, 08:45:49 pm
Thanks for your inputs Al, I need time to respond.
Generally speaking, by now I'm only attending HS rooms where players like to follow any kind of pattern, mostly "human" WL patterns. That is they care more about the various players' destiny than what the display shows.
And it's not a coincidence that every long term winner won't place any money on side bets. In some way I tend to disagree with that.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on September 23, 2019, 02:05:11 am
Pro players take fully advantage from the "time" factor. The same thing why the house is getting enormous profits: time. Itlr favourable situations to the player will arise no matter the math disadvantage, say that after four resolved hands (no ties), if we put in action 16 players wagering 16 different patterns we know for sure that two of them will get respectively a 4-hand winning or losing streak, the remaining players will get at least one winning or losing hand.
Of course that's based on the law of averages that in practical terms never apply to any game, otherwise casinos wouldn't exist. But it's just a matter of time and values will correspond more and more to such proportions.
In a sense, bac pro players wouldn't give a damned fk about the math disadvantage as they know very well that house cannot hope to get the perfect opposite situations capable to destroy every player's selection for long. For long.
The same for the player's expectation. For long.
Now we should set up our plan in two ways. Either we want to fight with the house by betting that outcomes will come out more deviated than expected (and naturally we'll privilege the deviated side) or that things will more or less come out according to their probability.
To assess what to bet, meaning which lines will be more likely or not (in terms of probability of success) we have put in action 100 different random walks working on each shoe emphasizing what we named a "limited random walk" category. And time plays a huge role, especially when limited by a finite card distribution.
Differently to the random walk concept described in P. Griffin book, for example, at baccarat any random walk will be hugely affected by a finite card distribution and by the asymmetrical force acting here and there on the shoe.
We may infer that most part of random walks are not following a perfect 50/50 proposition not only because on average one side gets a 15.86% advantage on 8.6% portion of total hands, but as finite card ranks are whimsically placed along the same shoe and not favoring deeply one side or another.
That's why a simple card counting strategy won't get the player any substantial help, even though is made by a sophisticated software.
In fact, a simple card counting strategy is just a form of one simple random walk getting deep deviations and almost always no valuable predictivity.
To say the truth, the so called "baccarat perfect strategy" presented in some books is just bighornshi.t and not only because it will make insignificant profits. We better adopt a silly "follow the lucky or contrast the unlucky" betting strategy (when it seems to be applicable) as at least it will involve more than one random walk.
The partial unrandomness of the shoe, a well known factor by almost every pro player, remains the main factor why this game may be beatable itlr. At baccarat there are no hunches or superstition or supernatural forces working, cards are there and the fact that some players seem to guess right or wrong for long must be interpreted just as a natural product of a random walk.
I mean that time remains a huge factor to try to get an advantage, but if cards are perfectly or almost perfectly shuffled we are wasting money and that's why I stress about the importance to not play some shoes or to wager very few hands per shoe.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: WALKINGMAN on September 26, 2019, 01:51:16 am
Thus the main problem is concentrated to spot the shoes which are really playable and neglect those which aren't.
Hi Asymbacguy,
I am walkingman this is my first post in this forum, I would like to share my style of play ot everybody hopefully i can contribute my experience excuse on my english im not good at it. Here how I play
My MM is mild fibonacci and mild Marti and sometime 1112222233333 I got it from GG forum. BS : DBL ZZ/ fixed Template BBP , My prime BS 4 trigger bets
Sample of my one trigger bets is the three opposite then bet same same opposite then use three separate bank progression each of the trigger pattern, have a small goal . and the most important don't stay one table once you win a bet move to other table. four trigger bets will never be equal in appearance so other may loss but the remaining is your profit. I strictly play short time If get my 10 units goal in 2 shoe it will be bye bye. as frankie said I do it in my way ( from ITS MY LIFE BY BON JOVI) My favorite rock band. Believe this is a very good method to play
Walking man
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on September 30, 2019, 01:34:45 am
Welcome and thanks for sharing.
In the short run every method seems to be good mostly as players try to raise the probability of success in every way (progressions, bet selection widely intended, following or not trends or lucky/unlucky players, etc) but itlr every attempt will be of no avail to consistently win. We need more than that.
For example we have been playing successfully "for long" a very simple method: we simply bet that a new Banker hand was followed by another single Banker hand (that is betting B after PB) utilizing a 1-2-4 progression. Anytime this progression failed (meaning that a cluster of three or more B singles appeared) and whenever a new B streak trigger came out, we raised our standard unit to 2, now wagering 2-4-8, then 4-8-16 and so on until the deficit was proportionally and slowly recovered step by step.
Even if it could sound as silly, this system has a math foundation as itlr PBB>PBP, B streaks are more likely than B singles, isolated B singles are more likely than clustered B singles and so on.
In a word and even taking into account the vig burden, the probability to be ahead of something along the way is close to 100%.
Notice that patterns as BPPPPBPPPBPPBPBP....will produce "just" three losses as the betting is stopped until a new B streak comes out. If you test your data you'll see that a two-step martingale failing won't come out so often and of course you need a kind of balancement to get a consistent long term profit.
The main problem to overcome is to get a decent distribution of winning and losing shoes, nonetheless is just a matter of time to recover any deficit.
But if you look more carefully to those shoes producing a lot of B singles clusters and few B streaks you'll see a kind of cluster-cluster effect. The reason is because such shoes will present few asymmetrical hands, asymmetrical hands went "wrong" for B side, B drawing hands were more predominant than standing hands, fifth card was mostly belonging to the 3,4,5,6,7 category. Easy to notice that itlr a perfect world would contain a minor whole amount of such situations.
On average asym hands impact on the whole shoe is 8.4%, on asym hands B gets a 15.86% advantage, B drawing hands are inferior to B standing hands, fifth card is more likely to be a not 3,4,5,6,7 rank category (1:1.6 ratio). Moreover any two card point higher than the opposite side is going to win about 2/3 of the times.
Similarly to what happens in other games, we should think baccarat as a game of ranges and not in term of exact outcomes. That's why the shuffling issue is of utmost importance as it's one trillion impossible to guess right into a random distribution.
In some way a proper shuffle judgement is even a better indicator than edge sorting as we want to beat the game legally and, more importantly, we want to be payed after our winning sessions (with all due respect to the baccarat queen Cheung Yin Sun).
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: WALKINGMAN on September 30, 2019, 05:13:23 am
Thanks,
Most player is will for play like for entertainment, I will try to win in short time as much as possible im using DBL ZZ 1/16 /BBP 1/8 fixed with trigger if lost then I will bet 4 times add some parlay it will easy to recover of my base bet using DBL ZZ I play to win in sequence not every decision . with small goal once my bankroll achieved comes from Casino tray that is the time I will attacked using my time and another strategy hitting them in & out navigating for more triggers aiming for small goal . I have to be patience of my for triggers / strategy using 4 level of money management. 75 % comes from patience and discipline to defeat baccarat only to 25 % on how much and how bet we selection in the table. that is i found out in practice. We cannot use math in practice to play baccarat since it is random I strictly play to 2 shoes as much as possible to in order to fight with equal mental strength of the dealer so to execute my strategy .
Walkingman
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: roversi13 on October 02, 2019, 05:55:24 am
I have been playing for long period B after PB(looking for double B) or B after BP (looking for single P),that are the two more frequent decisions. Bad results! I didn't find any difference between these two attacks and playing B all the time. Why a difference should exist?
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: Albalaha on October 02, 2019, 02:28:12 pm
Quote
For example we have been playing successfully "for long" a very simple method: we simply bet that a new Banker hand was followed by another single Banker hand (that is betting B after PB) utilizing a 1-2-4 progression. Anytime this progression failed (meaning that a cluster of three or more B singles appeared) and whenever a new B streak trigger came out, we raised our standard unit to 2, now wagering 2-4-8, then 4-8-16 and so on until the deficit was proportionally and slowly recovered step by step.
Interesting but did you ever simulate this way of playing? Banker is not a good bet for martingale. 5% commission works worst on the banker with martingale. If we lose 1-2-4, i.e 7 units, with 2 units we have fair chances of recovery but if we get many successive losses or more successive series losses than wins, bet could go dangerous. These two vital aspects should not be forgotten.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: roversi13 on October 02, 2019, 03:59:41 pm
Albalaha,you are right as far as a martingale of several terms is concerned. According with my experience a three terms martingale is acceptable,also for recovery
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on October 04, 2019, 09:14:42 pm
Interesting but did you ever simulate this way of playing? Banker is not a good bet for martingale. 5% commission works worst on the banker with martingale. If we lose 1-2-4, i.e 7 units, with 2 units we have fair chances of recovery but if we get many successive losses or more successive series losses than wins, bet could go dangerous. These two vital aspects should not be forgotten.
Of course we have simulated this approach and the flaw was just about the verb "simulate". As long as we do not play or test our method on live shoes we are not doing us a favor. And as you can easily deduce, we didn't play every single shoe dealt.
Improper shuffles will cut off a lot of possible combinations, naturally we must focus about the asymmetrical hands pace forming the Banker advantage. For example, the main target to get the best asym hand is a Banker 5 point and there are only two ways to form a 5 point: 5-ten value card and, less likely, 4-A, 3-2. That is we need a fair amount of 5s falling on the first two B cards. Then among the best asym hands, there is the Banker 4 point. Here to build this point Banker gets a 4-ten value card and 3-A and 2-2 possibilities. Notice that 3-2 hasn't the same probability than 2-2. In a sense we should get a kind of help if along with many other factors we want to track 5s and 4s falling here or there on the first two initial cards. Historically 4s and 5s were considered as Player helping cards but they really are only when they are distributed as fifth card when the hand dictates the P side to draw. Naturally a 4 or a 5 as sixth card remains a good card even for the Banker.
Anyway you are correct that the 5% vig may worsen any multilayered progression, yet Banker is always working by a 1.24% long term probability mathematical advantage. Imo the key is just to estimate the range of spots when B is REALLY more likely than P or, at a lesser degree, the range of spots when P is working by an almost perfect 50/50 untaxed and fair proposition (knowing that as long as no asym hand can be formed, some card distributions will help this side with a better 50/50 ratio).
Nonetheless I'm 100% sure that there's no way to control any shoe dealt, no matter how many random walks working for us we want to put in action.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on October 05, 2019, 03:11:27 am
I have been playing for long period B after PB(looking for double B) or B after BP (looking for single P),that are the two more frequent decisions. Bad results! I didn't find any difference between these two attacks and playing B all the time. Why a difference should exist?
Hi roversi!
The probability of the so called "more likely outcomes" is strongly related to the actual card distribution. Not every shoe is playable. In order to get a strong advantage, we need to play only badly shuffled shoes.
Recently we've set up a marvelous $500-$20.000 spread betting action at a high end casino acting as pure drunk clowns and where a mate was previously treated really bad and looking for revenge. Ask how things went after a 13-hour playing session.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on October 10, 2019, 07:14:19 am
No matter how smart we are and how deeply we have studied the game, if we consider bac outcomes as pure random propositions we know that after playing 2/3 of the total hands of each shoe, after 5 shoes dealt the probability to be ahead of something is very small. Up to the point that whenever a player is ahead of something (without having wagered any side bet) only two things happened: either he was getting a positive variance or, more likely, he was betting EV+ spots by a proper spread betting.
Since there's no way to overcome a negative edge working into a random game by a spread betting strategy, we must infer that acute players make some "low" bets just for the illusion of action, let's say only for comp purposes.
In a word, if baccarat is beatable is because itlr we will get the best of it by a flat betting strategy. That is some spots are slightly more likely than others.
And, again, this thing is only possible whether cards are not properly shuffled.
Discard the random world and ride the situations when a kind of unrandom world happens. Sometimes this could be done coincidentally. We prefer to do it scientifically.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: roversi13 on October 10, 2019, 09:27:43 am
When are you sure that you are facing a bad shuffling? During the shoe?During the shuffling itself? It's depends on the permanence or on the lazy croupier?
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: Lungyeh on October 10, 2019, 07:20:04 pm
Asymbac, is there a target amount that one wins and then stops? Say if one goes in with 5,000 what would be the recommended bet amount per hand and the recommended target win amount before you stop? For you.
Thanks.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on October 13, 2019, 09:47:25 pm
Asymbac, is there a target amount that one wins and then stops? Say if one goes in with 5,000 what would be the recommended bet amount per hand and the recommended target win amount before you stop? For you.
Thanks.
Hi Lungyeh!
No way we should set up a winning goal whenever a shoe is astoundingly playable. Our rule is to keep betting and betting, stop comes after we'll lose two or three (in the latter case whether we've won a lot) hands in a row.
If I had to put in play a $5000 bankroll, I'd make $400 or $500 standard wagers, i want to guess right by risking 10-12 units or so. Of course my betting is extremely diluted and shoe-depending.
Extremely favourable shoes are not coming around the corner, but they are still quite likely. In our over selected random walks multiparameter action (very difficult to put in action without the use of an illegal device that, btw, we never used), we have assessed that strong favourable shoes are coming out at a 1:3 ratio. In the real world I assess that such ratio is lowered to 1:4.
In conclusion I'd say that it's not what we want to win per every session played but just how will be the probability to cross those strong favourable shoes.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on October 13, 2019, 09:48:42 pm
Roversi, I'll try to respond to you later.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on October 14, 2019, 02:11:33 am
When are you sure that you are facing a bad shuffling? During the shoe?During the shuffling itself? It's depends on the permanence or on the lazy croupier?
Almost every shoe dealt is bad shuffled, unfortunately this feature won't get the player any help in many instances. Thus it's not how bad is shuffled an entire shoe that matters, instead it's how bad a shoe is shuffled in some portions of the deck.
Itlr bac outcomes are strictly related to the actual distribution of key cards, falling here or there yet forming some more or less likely sequences. Obviously nothing is more likely than the counterpart unless a strong unrandomness went in place (of course this may happen even into a perfect random environment coincidentally).
At any rate, the shuffling moves made by a live dealer or a CSM working on the same deck will produce the best opportunities to catch the situations where unrandomness will reign. Notice that 100% of the CSM decks are dealt alternatively (meaning that two different entire decks are shuffled each time). Of course where a CSM isn't working, it's virtually impossible that a live dealer will shuffle the cards in a perfect random fashion.
At HS tables (where most money is collected by casinos), decks are presented pre-shuffled and slight manually shuffled after, therefore the situation is more unclear. Should players fear a close to a perfect random shuffle? No way. Unless cards are arranged by a software, perfect randomness will get no place into an 8-deck shoe. The casinos' fortune is because players want to win too much in the wrong place or to win per every shoe dealt, an impossible task by any means.
That means that whether we're properly selecting the playable shoes and the favourable spots, baccarat is 1 trillion percent beatable scientifically by a close to 0% probability error.
Just as decks are not perfectly shuffled.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on October 18, 2019, 09:06:37 pm
Any method can't work whether we are going to consider each shoe dealt as perfect randomly shuffled. It's our interest to know that itlr unrandom shuffled shoes will tend to produce "random" results, that is that short term deviations are attributed to the simple variance's action. It should be our duty to catch the situations where this unrandomness will take place most. Never globally, always in relationship to the actual shoe we're observing/playing.
It's 100% certain that players making a living at this game won't bet the first hands of a shoe and never enter the game without having observed the cards pace. I mean they are not focused about outcomes but about cards falling and actual situations. Key cards, obviously. And of course drawing and standing and third card nature situations (say successions).
More on that later.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on October 20, 2019, 09:47:09 pm
So it seems that baccarat can be beaten by a strict mechanical bet selection, the name of this wonderful site..... :thumbsup: At least it's what my multiple years tests say that I've completed yesterday.
Probably some people play an EV+ game by using other tools, the main being long term experience, I just prefer to do things scientifically as much as possible.
Summarizing.
Certain (rare) baccarat hands give the player a sure edge, meaning that the same situation repeatedly bet and bet and bet by the same amount will provide a very interesting edge (not bighornsh.it edges as "perfect pc play" or stuff like that) .
Since I'm not a baby in the wood when talking about baccarat, I can only attribute this success to the partial unrandomness of the shufflings. That is I'm strongly convinced that randomness working into a math negative edge game cannot be beaten, especially by a flat betting strategy, the cardinal feature to know if we're doing good or not.
Cards are arranged to give certain outcomes, it's impossible to guess which side will be favorite to win, but either the distribution of outcomes and the expected values could help us to know whether there's a shuffling very close to randomness or anything else. To emphasize the importance of this topic, say that "Casino War" game it's 100% beatable whether any card is dealt without any further shuffle and offered with a proper deck penetration, And in the real world you'll never find conditions like that.
Of course Casino War is a perfect symmetrical game, meaning that no other asymmetrical factors will intervene in the process. Obviously players can only bet their side, that is just one side.
Baccarat is not a perfect high card game, as occasionally (8.4% of the times) one side takes the third card according to the rules and mathematically advantaging it. Therefore we have two different basic random walks working on the same shoe: the symmetrical probability and the asymmetrical probability. To say the truth a third probability will show up, the tie probability that slightly tend to disrupt some more likely situations. Especially when a large amount of shoes is utilized.
The tie interference provides quite a burden as tie probability is hugely endorsed whenever 6 cards are used to resolve one hand.
More later
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: Lungyeh on October 28, 2019, 02:34:49 am
Asymbac, in this Marina Bay Sands casino in Singapore, they have 2 Baccarat tables where after every hand, the cards are put back into the shuffling machine to be reshuffled and dealt again. There is no break, no end of shoe or change of card. Customers do not get to touch the cards. The dealer opens the cards and handle the cards. They change the whole 6 decks after say &-10 hours and the process repeats itself.
Is this a better chance to win?
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on October 28, 2019, 10:03:07 pm
Sorry Lungyeh, I've cleared some of my inappropriate posts, I have nothing against MBS in Singapore or any other casino in the world for that matter.
Back to your question.
Baccarat tables offering continuos shuffling are a totally different beast.
Of course when proper conditions are met, any card game is beatable by definition. If outcomes are provided by a CSM, the issue is more complicated as any hand is a new hand springing from a fresh deck. Maybe certain card tracking techniques could work. I suggest to search the CSM topic at Black Jack forums.
Anyway and even though the card removal effect is zero, CSMs still work physically. We need to collect a lot of CSM data acting on the same deck and then filtering the results by a multiparameter factor. Then to analyze if a kind of substantial unrandomness shows up after a given succession of cards (specific ranks).
My guess is that CSM decks are either totally unbeatable or, less less likely, wonderfully beatable (that is more beatable than normal live shoes).
For sure many bac players like to touch (say destroy) the cards so I do not expect much success from CSM tables.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on October 29, 2019, 10:08:36 am
I've contacted a couple of peers confirming that CSM shuffled shoes are unbeatable.
Therefore the new thread title is "why bac could be beatable itlr PROVIDING CARDS ARE PLAYED UP TO THE END OF THE SHOE"
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: Albalaha on October 30, 2019, 09:35:50 am
In all my experiences, shoes doesn't matter. One must know how to play in good, bad and worst cases as randomness will throw all to us. We can't get a "better than all" bet with any way to pick our bet.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: alrelax on October 30, 2019, 10:09:17 am
Sure you can and if you convince yourself otherwise you will miss all the great opportunities. Shoes you are able to capitalize on for many reasons you will lose out on it's as simple as that. The one main problem as what was brought out already is that people convince themselves that those same opportunities will always repeat themselves when they will not.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on October 31, 2019, 09:21:04 pm
In all my experiences, shoes doesn't matter. One must know how to play in good, bad and worst cases as randomness will throw all to us. We can't get a "better than all" bet with any way to pick our bet.
It depends about what we want to assign to the randomness definition. The fact that most of bac players think that any shoe is randomly produced doesn't mean that it is really randomly formed. Or, even worse, that some more likely situations (B streaks vs B singles, etc) are more due in humanly considered intervals.
Randomness takes a primary importance in relation to probability calculus as probability needs pure random propositions to be properly assessed.
Itlr unrandom events will dilute more and more up to the point where infinite unrandom results will converge to supposedly random results.
Therefore imo there's no way we can't limit pure randomness, instead we should find the spots where the unrandomness takes a so huge impact that the negative math edge we have to face is overcome within short terms.
Key word is "collective", a term coined by the best randomness expert of all times.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on November 02, 2019, 10:19:18 pm
Attempts made to try to read randomness are totally futile, better to spot the situations where unrandomness could take a substantial role. And to get a better idea of what a shoe is producing we must think in term of ranges of probability.
Mathematically our best move to get ahead of something into a supposedly random world is to bet everything we want to risk just on one hand. We are still playing an EV- game, of course. Any move different from that will be the casino's fortune.
Even if the game isn't perfect randomly produced, best action to take is still trying to get an edge within very short terms and by wagering huge into over selected spots. We want the math to be on our side. Always.
If I'd say that certain rare spots are offering a 70% winning probability nobody would be interested to know how and when those spots can come out. No bac player is willing to register several shoes then betting a hand that yet gets a 30% probability of losing. Mostly those rare EV+ spots comes out from a possible RTM effect but we know that whether the game is random it's impossible or very very unlikely to transform an EV- game into a profitable game.
I'm deadly sure that certain acute players are playing a kind of game close or equal to a zero negative edge just by wagering very few spots. Technically is to bet P when an asymmetrical hand is huge unlikely, maybe hoping that the actual card distribution favors P side as an additional tool. Or, most likely, betting a restrict number of B hands knowing that the asym feature will be more likely than expected.
Probability gambling is a game of streaks intended in a wide way, of course we want to play games (baccarat) where each event will be slightly affected by previous situations, especially when we have reasons to think that cards are not properly shuffled.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on November 06, 2019, 09:56:15 pm
According to our tests, one of the best tool we can use to know whether a deck is properly shuffled or not is about the "natural" back to back probability. And of course about the asym probability.
Even though a substantial error occurs for variance issues (less likely card combinations producing the same effect), this is one of the best tool to get a better idea of what's coming out.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on November 09, 2019, 10:09:54 pm
Consider this simple method.
Our plan is to detect when a natural point will come out, no matter which side will be kissed by such natural. The probability any natural will come out is 34.1%, a slight higher than a dozen will show up at roulette. Without any doubt, when a natural comes out a symmetrical hand will be formed, meaning that betting banker is a fool option.
At some extent, any natural apparition translates into an idi.ot choice (when wagering B) and a fair situation when wagering P.
Since a 34.1% probability is way higher than a 8.4% probability, we know that a back to back probability is quite more likely even though half considered (as we can't bet both sides). Naturally there are many levels where a natural could come out, a back to back probability is a zero gap, a natural followed by another different hand is a 1-gap probability and so on.
Differently to roulette, the overall natural probability per any shoe is more restricted as we can't cancel 8s and 9s and zero value cards from the deck. Especially whether 8s and 9s should be more ore less concentrated on some portions of the deck. Naturally a perfect 8s/9s pace is out of order for obvious reasons and we still have to fight other less likely card combinations forming a natural.
Same about asym hands. What we really want when betting Banker is the asym hand production and nothing else. Everything different from that is a long term EV- move, unless our B bets are able to catch a better than 8.4% probability. Coincidentally such probability is nearly half of the probability to get a natural on either side.
Instead of guessing which side will win, we should try to focus about those two probabilities, as they are the most likely to produce the actual outcomes. Itlr.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: judge on November 21, 2019, 04:16:08 am
Walkingman, could you elaborate more on your dbl ZZ and others you mentioned,,,Thanks Mark
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on December 02, 2019, 11:03:22 pm
A collective is a long term registration of events getting the same attributes and regardless of the spots of the succession we've chosen to register, we'll expect to get constant probability values. In some way this is the perfect form to detect real randomness as we derive the probability after the events have really happened into the same supposedly independent world. I mean that without knowledge we suppose the model we are playing into is random but more often than not it isn't.
Obviously baccarat must be considered as an infinite succession of finite games as each shoe will feature dynamic probabilities either for card distribution issues and for the rules.
Nonetheless, it's widely ascertained by mathematicians and gambling experts that no matter which spots we want to bet along every shoe, itlr our results will follow the same WL percentages, our old -1.06% -1.24% negative values. That is they assume that every shoe dealt is a form of a collective, at least in the baccarat sense. And actually they are completely right, providing shoes offered to players are randomly shuffled.
Therefore and taking for grant that no one taxed random world can be beaten by any means itlr, if one is capable to devise spots constantly shifting to one side or, more likely, getting very small deviations, well this is an absolute confirmation that most shoes are not randomly shuffled.
Thus in order to achieve this, two conditions must be fulfilled to get profitable opportunities:
- not every shoe is playable
- a proper place selection must be used
If every shoe would be playable and knowing that some high stakes players are pretty smart, baccarat wouldn't exist. Remember that casinos get less value money from certain HS players than from common low-mid stakes bettors as the former population bet with an edge rarely exceeding the 1.06/1.24% negative edge (huge comps, rebates, flat betting strategy, etc). Baccarat exists as players want to bet every shoe and most part or all of hands dealt. Interesting to notice that we must add a subjective probability theory to a strict frequency probability line.
It remains to assess which shoes may be profitable or at least less disadvanteged to the players.
First condition fulfilled, the place selection topic is, imo, of paramount and decisive importance. Outcomes place selection is the direct scientific proof that baccarat shoes are not pure collectives as they involve a probability statistically significant different than what we've been taught for years. And the only possible answer is that shoes aren't properly shuffled (or, less likely, that baccarat is a vulnerable game).
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on December 07, 2019, 01:05:03 am
To get a better idea of how baccarat really works, I introduce my concept of "random walk".
A player whimsically betting here or there, following trends, following lucky or unlucky players, playing drunk or perfectly sober, wagering by the influence of Alprazolam or THC or whatever, constitutes a random walk. The same about big road and the four derived roads, now being mechanically ordered.
Naturally even a player wagering only one hand per every 2, 5 or 100 shoes is a random walk. A random walk is just an infinite sequence of W and L successions having almost (as B bets >P bets) the same probability to show up.
For example, if the shoe provides really random outcomes, W/L dispositions follow the old 50/50 rule dictating that the probability to win (or lose) four hands in a row is 1/16 (6.25%) and so on. But such probability is real only when the shoe is producing random outcomes in the sense that no matter which spot of the shoe we start to bet those outcomes will be unaffected by previous events (place selection). Naturally and in absence of informations, we have no means to detect whether the first four hands dealt of a new shoe are really randomly placed or not. In any other scenario, if we think the future four hands will give us a sensible better 6.25% WL ratio in either direction we'll get an edge. Same about lower or higher probability circumstances.
Imo, the more we wait for favourable dependent and allegedly unrandom situations, the better will be our results, providing we proper classify the playable shoes. It's easier than what you think.
Tomorrow I'll talk about what I improperly name as "limited" random walks.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on December 08, 2019, 01:45:11 am
The best baccarat player in the world is not the person who is capable to win the larger amount of units but whoever keeps his/her losses very close to the negative edge value (say an average -1.15% of total money wagered on BP hands). At the end of the year we should try to recollect how money we have bet and how much we have lost at tables. If the sum is around 1.15% of the money bet we are really in good shape. That is the number of W should be almost equal to the number of L, only vig caused our debacle.
Unfortunately it's quite likely we had lost more than that, maybe we have added some side bets here and there or that we have used a bad money management. Of course no MM could provide us a winning method thus we should accept the idea that the game cannot be beaten other than by a proper bet selection.
Imo there are only two ways to get a winning bet selection working itlr:
- flat betting strategy where number of W exceeds the number of L and the vig impact
- short multilayered progressions oriented to get a key W or Ws happening on restricted sequences considered as profitable
Alas, those strategies cannot win when applied at random EV- games. And for that matter they can't win at EV=0 games either.
Many baccarat books or, worse, internet system sellers, keep stressing us about the importance to "quit when ahead". They want to teach us how to win and then they put in emphasis such silly phrase. If I'm winning and I have to quit to preserve my bucks, why not starting to play a kind of an opposite strategy? And when do I know I should quit because I've reached the apex of my winnings?
Gambling is a game of streaks, at baccarat say a game of "gaps" between two opposite situations that not necessarily must be B or P hands. It's just the natural streak appearance that destroy every system. Providing the game is randomly placed. Then our task should be directed to spot situations where a lesser number of streaks should be more probable than normal thus increasing the likelihood to get a more expected outcome. And it can't be that unless a kind of unrandomness or super complex dependency is acting.
But even if you take for grant that bac shoes are not randomly formed, you can't forget that we're speaking about an edge quite high but limited to very few spots and not to every shoe dealt.
Let's make an example of one of many singular random walks we could put in action fictionally and oriented to disprove the concept that bac shoes are collectives.
Say we want to set up a short "road" where we'll classify outcomes as A or B depending whether after a winning natural point happening on a given side the two next hands bet on the same side are producing at least one win. If we win in two attempts we mark 1, otherwise we mark 2. Thus our trigger to start or follow up the classification is the winning natural happening on either side.
Example: B9 winning point, we'll bet two times B; if we win we mark 1 otherwise we mark 2. Whenever naturals do not show up or by gaps higher than 2 we do not mark anything. In reality this is an irregular random walk in the sense that two-step betting action will get an obvious nearly 75% EXPECTED probability to win whether a kind of progression is applied. And naturally it's not about the general more likelihood to get 1 or 2, just the distribution of such 1s and 2s. That is that that 75% value is more or less deviated toward one side.
No matter how whimisically are the actual results, this new 1/2 line most of the times won't follow the natural probability distribution, especially from a place selection point of view. Not everytime but most of the times.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on December 13, 2019, 10:45:57 pm
In reality no one long term winning player wants to inform the enemy about the details by which this game could be beaten. Casinos prosper about the ignorance of their bettors and not only about their fkng math edge. And truth to be told, baccarat is still alive as the vast majority of asian players rely on luck about their bets destiny, say the persistence of certain trends showing up along the way.
I can't rule out the possibility that other researchers had scientifically theorized the unrandomness of baccarat, yet if we keep thinking the game as a randomly produced game we're going to nowhere. Probably we'll get better odds to cross a turtle roaming on the Mohave desert than trying to win a game we think to be randomly placed.
Actually and even taking for grant that the game is really random (a horrendous mistake), we can build certain betting lines that will minimize the variance factor working into an asymmetrical proposition. Next post will be about those methods.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on December 14, 2019, 03:08:06 am
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.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: alrelax on December 15, 2019, 01:31:03 am
I will post a short outline under the topic, Wagers and Intricacies thread.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on December 23, 2019, 11:20:50 pm
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.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: Lungyeh on December 25, 2019, 11:32:37 am
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
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: alrelax on December 25, 2019, 05:10:51 pm
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.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on December 27, 2019, 10:09:38 pm
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.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on December 28, 2019, 11:59:29 pm
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.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on January 02, 2020, 10:27:49 pm
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.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on January 08, 2020, 10:04:55 pm
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.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on January 10, 2020, 10:46:16 pm
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.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: Fran7738 on January 16, 2020, 05:44:06 am
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 -:)
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on January 16, 2020, 09:42:17 pm
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.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on January 21, 2020, 11:57:12 pm
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.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on January 25, 2020, 10:39:02 pm
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
8) 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.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on January 25, 2020, 11:53:11 pm
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.
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.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on January 27, 2020, 10:58:29 pm
We see that no matter what are the actual results according to the game rules, any single shoe formed by a finite card distribution and dealt almost entirely will be somewhat biased (from a strict probability calculus point of view). We just need to know how to take advantage of such bias recurring per every shoe dealt.
Of course if baccarat still exists is because the bias either is very limited or not always detectable by the common forms of registrations made by ridicolously simple mechanical processes. The more we are complicating our registrations, better is the probability to disprove that baccarat is a random game.
In reality some simple events happening at baccarat are affected by certain very low dispersion values that when properly selected are offering a player's edge easily surpassing a possible 10-15% negative edge established by the house. Quality events like the naturals apparition on either side, for example. Unfortunately no casino is so stupi.d to offer such side bets, they want us to enlarge the uncertainty by forcing us to guess the exact winning hand.
Now, if a 34.2% probability presents low dispersion values, why to bother about a well higher 49.32% or 50.68% winning probability?
Indeed there's a big difference when betting low dispersion values at an almost 1:2 winning probability compared to an almost coin flip probability where dispersion values are considered as undetectable. Quality happening on former situation must be converted into a quality feature on the latter events. The B doubles succession is one of the simplest strategy to adopt with the important caveat that differently to naturals either side apparition, many shoes are not fitting the requisites to get a proper quality factor for a lack of space or obvious intrinsic features not neceessarily related to key cards fall.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on February 03, 2020, 12:02:56 am
In the way presented so far, we see that at baccarat we do not need complicated math formulas to prove or disprove randomness. A simple place selection method forming a miriad of subcollectives will make the job. Leave to the experts and casinos the idea that bac shoes are randomly produced or, conversely, that a possible unrandomness will be recognizable by the formation of repetitive patterns or stuff like that. Baccarat could be solved (or not) first by the negation or confirmation of the strictest definition of randomness ever made and then and only then by the probability calculus applied on such random or unrandom environment.
Probably one of the reasons why bac is considered a random game happens as BP limiting values of relative frequency itlr will conform to a 50.68/49.32 steady proposition. Thus every shoe will be eligible to be included in the registrations and that each playable spot will provide given probability values no matter what.
Bighornsh.it by any means.
First, BP probability values vary a lot by the actual shoe composition and actual card situations not regarding a so called general or so "equally likely scenario", secondly many BP "higher level" outcomes will surely provide lower dispersion values, third and more importantly, place selection issue will form infinite subcollectives not fitting the above expected BP dispersion values, especially whether involving a "same" or "opposite" result at given spots happening at certain shoes.
Consider my plan #2. That is about the restricted probability to get multiple BB consecutive scenarios at various degrees. We may think that after any given BB situation the most likely pattern will be BBB and not BBP by a better 0.18% long term degree.
Rattlesnake.sh.it.
Tomorrow the fundamental steps to restrict the variance.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: Fran7738 on February 06, 2020, 06:48:47 pm
Hi Asymbac,
in regards of this post on randomness, what is the best table to choose from?
A. The cards are being shuffled by hand by being all spread on the table first?
B. The cards are being shuffled by hand , pile by pile whit ease ,grace and skills 8) ?
C. Shuffled master machines ?
D. Woo site simulations results ? Or RNG ?
I am looking to play shoes where the early presentments will be significatives for a good portion of the remainder of the shoe . :whistle:
At first, i have been playing around with your unb plan no2 using Woo sites simulations results and got some good results ! But let's not forget that every lost =3 ...
Since, i have been looking at live data from two different kind of shuffling technics and they just don't look the same as RNG ones !! Lol
This is telling me that the way it is shuffled is of a great importance .
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on February 10, 2020, 01:05:43 am
Hi Fran!
Randomness is a quite intricate topic and baccarat wasn't resolved so far as "experts" made a fatal mistake considering bac shoes as randomly produced. Actually the very few players making a living at this game know very well this bac vulnerability.
No matter the game involved, any shoe formed by multiple decks provide "unrandom" situations as key cards could be more or less concentrated in some portions of the shoe. Itlr such key card distribution will dictate the results, say their weight on the whole picture, thus the probability of success of certain bets. At bac we have the luxury to decide what, when and how much to bet. Not mentioning the fact that bac shoes are dealt almost entirely. In some sense we should know that most of the times some event/s must happen at least one time or, it's the same concept, that certain situations are very very unlikely to happen even considering every single shoe dealt.
About your specific question, let's say that any physical shuffling procedure will provide some valuable unrandom spots to bet into, practically it's just a matter of space. Say of available betting space. And of course we should expect very few occasions to bet profitably.
By any means SM machines working on the same shoe provide the best opportunities for the player. Obviously I do not want to go into details, keep "experts" and casinos thinking that such shoes are randomly placed. Overall those tables provide huge profits for the house as many players like to wager the innumerable side bets offered (without trying to use the proper card counting techniques).
I do not know how Woo shoes are produced, I guess they are not springing from a real physical source. Thus they do not mean nothing to me. Even if my unb plan #2 had provided good results to you. The same about RNG shoes.
I am looking to play shoes where the early presentments will be significatives for a good portion of the remainder of the shoe .
It depends about the portion of the shoe you have considered and about the quality of the hands dealt so far.
Say it's virtually impossible to miss a winning hand unless a proper betting space is available to you.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on February 11, 2020, 10:49:50 pm
Starting to consider baccarat from the strictest definitions of randomness it's the way to go.
When playing you do not want to only adhere to those fkng roads displayed on the screen. They are springing from too simple situations very vulnerable to our main enemy: variance. Even whether unrandomly produced. That's because after some mechanical given conditions are met, they consider each hand as eligible to be registered no matter what.
It's obvious the more hands we are collecting per any given shoe higher will be the variance and this strongly relates to some insensitivity to place selection and probability after events features. I mean that we have to discard from our registrations many resolved hands pretending as they haven't happened at all.
It's just this fact that makes beatable this wonderful game.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: Fran7738 on February 12, 2020, 07:49:25 pm
Thank's a lot Asymbac for those complete replies . What i meant by ,
I am looking to play shoes where the early presentments will be significatives for a good portion of the remainder of the shoe .
I read a post from Alrelax some time ago and can not find it back for the moment and as a hint , he was stating that if at the beginning of a shoe , there is a streak of players or bankers , we could then find some very good spots to play the side of the streak.
The way it starts could stay this way for a while until a major turning point or even for the whole shoe?
I am probably losing my time but i am working on a betting bet selection strategy where i need singles and at worst doubles . Then i have a stop loss plan for shoes with lots of streaks .
Sometimes, if i am alone at the table ( i need cards to play ,lol) , i will stop and reverse when there is a triple showing shooting for a streak of 7 using the 1+4 side parlay wager of Alrelax -:) . This bet need to be successful one out of 15 to break even ... I don't have statistics or lots of experience but i think it should succeed one out of two shoes on average .
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: Albalaha on February 13, 2020, 02:18:46 am
In a random game, past doesn't tell your future. It can not say that if a pattern seems to work, it will continue or end right there. At max, you may get a good guess on sequential probabilities. For example, if a run of 15 bankers has just happened which ended by a player, there may not be another stretch of 15 bankers just there. It is not impossible to happen but most unlikely. All other guesses are just guesses without even slightest degree of accuracy. By the way, I do not intend to disrupt a discussion with my inputs which may look off topic to you. I just want to let you understand that working on betselection will not yield you anything. I have been doing extensive researches on random games like roulette and baccarat and have analysed several millions outcomes in thousands of ways in past 14-15 years. In the beginning, I was as naive as a routine gambler. I wasted thousands of hours working to find the best bet, strangely, there is none. If you want to earn from a random game, only way is devise your own money management considering all kinds of variance you may get. With that all games with slight house edge will be beatable, not just baccarat.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: Fran7738 on February 13, 2020, 05:23:26 pm
From a guy with so many years of experience, your input is more than welcome!
I do agree with you , '' in a random game, past doesn't tell your future '' .
I will not play RNG bac games or even try to figure out presentments occurring.
That's why i find Alrelax and Asymbac post so interesting .
They are playing a game where randomness is questionnable.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: alrelax on February 13, 2020, 05:35:32 pm
On a related note, I know I touch on many subjects and many intricacies of real live brick-and-mortar casino baccarat play.
I do not believe in trying to define card order or the meaning of Randomness and how to literally beat it. I don't believe anyone ever will and I don't believe it's possible to do any type of mechanical or scheduled wagering with successful results with consistent play.
In summation to this quick note, I believe in identifying and recognizing and wagering when something is there that is powerful and presenting itself while capitalizing on it with positive progressions with my money management methods involving win money.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: 8OR9 on February 14, 2020, 10:41:52 pm
How to win at roulette, baccarat, sports betting etc etc ( negative expectation games )
1. You will always lose more bets than you will win. Sorry about that.
2. You have to win more on your winning bets than you lose on your losing bets to show a profit.
3. Set a maximum, conservative unit loss per bac shoe or pre-determined number of roulette spins or pre-determined number of sports bets and set a planned unit profit per bac shoe or pre-determined number of roulette spins or pre-determined number of sports bets ......such as 30 roulette spins or 30 sports bets
For example, assume you will lose a max of 8 units a baccarat shoe or pre-determined number of roulette spins or pre-determined sports bets.....then assume a worst case of losing 4 of those shoes or predetermined number of roulette spins or pre-determined sports bets in a row so that you lose 32 units ( 8 units x 4 =32 ) A losing run of 4 sequences in a row will eventually happen ...sorry about that.
You can use 5 instead of 4 to be really conservative. Also those losing sequences do not have to be in a row, they can also be a net loss of 4 or 5 sequences over a large number or sequences such as WLLWWWLLLLLWLLL = net loss of 5 sequences.=loss of 40 units ( 5 sequences x 8 unit lost per sequence =40 units lost )
Now assume your profit objective is 4 units a baccarat shoe or over a pre-determined number of bac shoes or pre-determined roulette spins or pe-determined sports bets.
Then raise your bet size to 2 units which will give you an 8 unit profit and in 4 bac shoes or 4 pre-determined sequences of spins or 4 pre-determined sequences of sports bets an you should be even ( 8 x 4 units = 32 units)
You lost 32 bets and won 16 bets so you only won 16/48 bets = 33 % of your bets but you broke even by winning more on your winning bets than you lost on your losing bets.
However, over a long series of bac shoes or roulette spins or sport bets where it takes a long time to break even, the 33% number will increase to more than 33% ( in my example, you won the next 4 sequences in a row...which rarely happens.......)
For example, a sequence WLLLWWLLWLLWLL gives you a net loss of 4 sequences and lose 32 units ..then raise your bets to 2 units a bet and then you get a sequence of LLWWWLLWWWLWWW so you get a net win of 4 sequences at 8 units a bet so you won 4 x 8 =32 units and you broke even
You have to set a pre-determined number of roulette spins or sports bets since there is no "shoe" in roulette or sports betting since the number of roulette spins and sports bet go on towards infinity.
In baccarat a sequence is the same as a shoe.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: Fran7738 on February 15, 2020, 05:28:41 pm
I use sequence of 5 . I took the idea from gr8player ( he use 7 i think) from his ''en ville '' negative progression .
When a sequence is negative, 0 win-5loss , 1 win-4loss, 2 win-3loss then i triple for the next one . If a loss again then i quit playing that shoe or i do revert to one unit betting until another winning sequence .
What i am looking for is a bet selection that produce short streak of losses and of course i have to sacrifice long streak of wins as well .
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on February 15, 2020, 11:33:28 pm
What i am looking for is a bet selection that produce short streak of losses and of course i have to sacrifice long streak of wins as well .
Perfect. And this is going to happen only and only whether outcomes are springing from a unrandom source. Since you can take for grant that live bac shoes are not randomly produced, it remains to define how, when and how much such unrandomness work on the shoes dealt from a practical point of view.
After all we are not talking about gas kinetic or Brownian movement theories, just a stu.pi.d finite 416 card arrangement following specific rules that produce A or B results.
At baccarat the A/B probability varies a lot after some multistep conditions were met or not along each shoe, thus simple linear assessments won't go but to nowhere. The same about certain "balancement" strategies that, imo, are worthless.
To do that we have to put in action several different random walks NOT registering each hand, thus trying to negate the concept that each bac hand will be equally likely (or following the natural slight asymmetricity) at every single step of the shoe dealt. This being a complete fkng nonsense made by mathematicians or some "gambling experts" that know about baccarat what I know about astrophsyics. That is zero.
By putting in action several random walks working into a sure unrandom enviroment, some spots will provide an edge well superior to any precise edge sorting techinque.
And differently than "I know the first card nature", we'll be surely get payed.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on February 16, 2020, 10:56:34 pm
Imo and according to a couple of serious players the best situation to aim for is to win just one unit per shoe. Say per every playable shoe. Hence there are no "good" or "bad" shoes, just shoes that may or not offer enough "room" to get the searched situations. "Room" doesn't necessarily means the number of hands dealt so far. There are many of additional factors involved I don't want to discuss here.
Actually in some cardrooms shoes are still shuffled manually, say quickly and badly shuffled thus we could think to get multiple wins per each shoe, but I do not suggest to apply this strategy as bac remains a game full of traps (unless a huge betting spread is utilized after the profit was secured).
I know it's not that appealing to set up a mere +1 profit per shoe (especially knowing that not every shoe is eligible to be played), but think that we join bac tables just to win getting an astounding high probability of success and not to gamble. Moreover we see that the "luck" factor will be placed in the remotest corner; after having assessed that a given shoe is playable, we do know that a certain event must happen at least once. A thing confirmed by the fact that itlr profitable spots will produce points mathematically favorite at the start, meaning that no matter which side we've got to bet, itlr the side we wagered got the highest two-card value by values very different to a random environment.
Again you can measure the validity of your system/method/approach by simply controlling the percentages of the two-card highest point happening on the wagered side. If itlr such values tend to be equal, alas the method can't work. It's just a mere kind of taxed unbeatable coin flip proposition.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: Albalaha on February 19, 2020, 02:44:28 am
@alrelax,
Quote
I do not believe in trying to define card order or the meaning of Randomness and how to literally beat it. I don't believe anyone ever will and I don't believe it's possible to do any type of mechanical or scheduled wagering with successful results with consistent play.
Well, I agree with your first sentence but not with second. Actually, people did not witness any mechanical strategy so far that beats the house edge and variance both together but it is not impossible either. Until when an aeroplane was devised and successfully flew with man inside the machine, it was considered a dream only. Many people tried even silly things to do the same but all failed. Now, we not just go to continent to continent flying, we are reaching even Mars. I will not proclaim that I have done something like that recently but I am close to that. It is pretty doable.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on February 21, 2020, 10:51:56 pm
A supposedly random environment having the same attributes (collective) produces a miriad of subcollectives that should confirm or not that the original source was produced really randomly. Of course we need a lot of samples to assess that as many subcollectives are formed by diluted outcomes that may present a short term positive (or negative) variance wrongly fooling or discouraging us.
The best watchdog of randomness is the statistical concept of dispersion, being the sd the most common one. In a word, opposite results whatever taken should follow the distribution laws of the theorical probability of each result, in our example that itlr resolved results are pB=0.5068 and pP=0.4932.
We know that there's no fkng way such values are really working per each hand dealt or per every shoe dealt, being the result of two different finite 50/50 or 57.93/42.07 ratios.
A supposedly random environment having the same attributes (collective) produces a miriad of subcollectives that should confirm or not that the original source was produced really randomly. Of course we need a lot of samples to assess that as many subcollectives are formed by diluted outcomes that may present a short term positive (or negative) variance wrongly fooling or discouraging us.
The best watchdog of randomness is the statistical concept of dispersion, being the sd the most common one. In a word, opposite results whatever taken should follow the distribution laws of the theorical probability of each result, in our example that itlr resolved results are pB=0.5068 and pP=0.4932.
Actually we know that there's no fkng way such probability values are really working per each hand dealt or per every shoe dealt, being the result of two different finite 50/50 or 57.93/42.07 ratios.
The fact that long term values tend to more and more approach such values doesn't necessarily mean each shoe dealt is randomly placed. In reality an astounding amount of two fighting results are not getting the sd values expected for a mere theorical probability. What we need to set up a long term unbeatable plan.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: alrelax on February 22, 2020, 06:37:51 pm
Imo and according to a couple of serious players the best situation to aim for is to win just one unit per shoe. Say per every playable shoe. Hence there are no "good" or "bad" shoes, just shoes that may or not offer enough "room" to get the searched situations. "Room" doesn't necessarily means the number of hands dealt so far. There are many of additional factors involved I don't want to discuss here.
Actually in some cardrooms shoes are still shuffled manually, say quickly and badly shuffled thus we could think to get multiple wins per each shoe, but I do not suggest to apply this strategy as bac remains a game full of traps (unless a huge betting spread is utilized after the profit was secured).
I know it's not that appealing to set up a mere +1 profit per shoe (especially knowing that not every shoe is eligible to be played), but think that we join bac tables just to win getting an astounding high probability of success and not to gamble. Moreover we see that the "luck" factor will be placed in the remotest corner; after having assessed that a given shoe is playable, we do know that a certain event must happen at least once. A thing confirmed by the fact that itlr profitable spots will produce points mathematically favorite at the start, meaning that no matter which side we've got to bet, itlr the side we wagered got the highest two-card value by values very different to a random environment.
Again you can measure the validity of your system/method/approach by simply controlling the percentages of the two-card highest point happening on the wagered side. If itlr such values tend to be equal, alas the method can't work. It's just a mere kind of taxed unbeatable coin flip proposition.
as.
You write so many things that are spot on. To those people that play mostly 'on-line' I would say they will tend to be less agreeable. And, like yourself, I rather not get into discussions as to the technicality of the on-line gambler versus the brick and motor live casino gambler. Two different sets of everything, IMO!
Things will work and the same things will not work, in the same shoe or the following shoe or 3 or 5 shoes later or switching tables, etc.
As I have been attempting to express, define and bring out the type of play I am involved in at B&M casinos, it is not always easy to write about. Yes, some things are left out and other things I write about are drug out. I do not know anyway to make all happy any longer here.
A great example was the other night at the casino. The shoe was a classic gold mine waiting to be picked. IMO, years ago the casino would have got smacked and I mean big time, like hundreds of thousands of dollars would have went flying out of the dealers rack. But today the highest majority of the people do not play the way they used to, like pre-2005'ish lets say. Rarely these days is the casino hurt. Almost every hand it is pick up $3,000 or $4,000 and pay out $800 or $1,500. Or pick up $8,000 and pay out $3,000 or pick up $1,000 and pay out $150. You get the drift.
Playing for the CUT, meaning the opposite or playing for something to happen, will almost with the highest majority of the times, grind the player right down with his buy in. If you are playing for a one unit win and that is it, that is very easily done with time, willpower and nothing else to do. (I will repeat myself, I have a full time business, I have other things I do, I have family, I do not go to a casino-hang all day or all night and spend countless hours each and every day on the gaming floors). Nothing wrong, I just do not do that. With that said, I was at the casino the other night. The shoe was a few ones and twos the way it started, then 2 rows of Players side wins the first one 8 Players repeating than one Banker then one Player then one Banker then another 9 Players repeating themselves once again.
I watched in amazement how every single person on that table except for one, wagered and kept wagering for the Bankers side to win. Tens of thousand of dollars were lost to the casino. I am telling you, the newer style of baccarat is in the casinos favor, tailored by the casino and most of its dealers, the set ups and the aura in general. Couple those things with the higher internet know it all, A-Alpha male persona, etc., and the casino is a happy camper as the saying goes.
Then after the two rows of Players side wins, there was a section of 1s, 2s and 3s. Then the Bankers side wins almost replicated those Players side repeating wins to a T. Except they were stronger and with more naturals and a lot of 7s over 6s, and 4s and 5s for the Bankers first two cards and the Players 3rd card killing the Players side each time. Of course while all that was going on, almost everyone once again refused to follow but rather went on a wagering war siding with the Players side instead of what was being produced and presented, the Bankers side. It equaled right out. The balance of the winning hands equaled out and it does more times than not. Then it just bounced back and forth until the end of the shoe for the following 20 hands or so.
No matter what the shoe was producing, almost everyone was only wagering for the CUT, if it was repeating they were all convinced the next hand would go to the opposite side. If it did CUT, they were then convinced the shoe would produce a repeat and it never did, at least 8 or 9 times out of every 10 hands.
I am just amazed at the typical players mentality these days. And it is not in one market here, it is the same from region to region. Sure there are some places that occasionally play the way most of us did prior to 2005 or for sure 2000. But I would have to say it is a complete opposite turn around, more and more in the casinos favor for numerous reasons, some of which I have outlined and wrote about in the past.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on February 22, 2020, 10:28:26 pm
I remember one occasion where I was railbirding a couple of asian players at an off Strip casino. Knowing the minimum limit was $10, they got a hell of bankroll something like $20.000 or more. They used a violent martingale like 1-4-10-25 and of course they started to accumulate chips. It seemed they used a weird selection the like of wagering alternatively for the repeat and for the cut. I stayed there and of course they lost their composure (and they money) after having crossed an "unlikely" losing streak of ten hands. Curiously in each hand they've lost but one they got the best two-card hand, third and fourth cards made the disaster.
Ask those players about the importance to start with the best two-card hand, :))
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: alrelax on February 22, 2020, 10:41:19 pm
That is the way they generally play at The Palace Station as well as the Gold Coast Casino. Those two that is the Asian's normal way they play 24/7. Other places have people that do the same as you described, but those two come to mind more than anywhere else in Vegas.
Comes to mind a few guys from one of the casinos I have been going to the past several months. I think they appeared with the beginning of the 2019-2020 college school year. So put it back around Sept/October. 3 Korean kids in college, foreign exchange students in some professional course at a grad school, either for medical/doctor or legal/law. Their parents/family have money no doubt. One can tell just by their clothes, super nice designer clothes. Their buy-in can always be a round up of cash from their peers, the way it was always done on the east coast with the Asian, particular the Chinese in the larger restaurants with 75 to 300 employees or so, pooling their cash together and designating one or two people to head to Atlantic City to play it out. But these 3 Koreans are not doing that, because no one is ever watching them.
Anyway, they only play the CUT or 1 or 2 repeats, that is it. Consistently, always. They been here for about 4 months now, playing about 4 or 5 times a week. They win, they lose of course. They are close to table max bettors more than 50% of the time they are wagering. They do not wager every hand and they play a few shoes at most. However, what does stick out is their remarks, their reactions and their physically gestures.
You know they read about the game on the internet and/or YouTube. Probably they also were told about it from other peers of theirs. Combine the two and their inexperience and gullibility, and that leads to, lets experiment with mom and dads cash, at least that is my summation anyway.
Say they are on the Bank with a two card 6 and the Players side has a 1 or 2 or a 3. You can see their facial gestures and smiles if you look at them without that 3rd card coming out for the Players side. 9 times out of 10, they are raising their hands and pausing to high five each other, counting on a monkey or a card coming out to allow them to win of course. Then the card comes out that brings the Players side up to a 7 or 8 or a 9 and if you just glance at their faces, you would observe a smile immediately turning to a frown or their lips silently saying, "F**k that S**t", etc., etc. Repeatedly.
Or say they were on the Players side and the player had a 2 card 7 and the Bankers side had two monkeys or a total of 0. Then the 3rd card for the Bankers side comes out and it is an 8 or a 9. Yes, this does not happen every time, but when it is happening and continues to happen, an experienced bac player knows to back off and not to martingale or employ anything of the likes.
The other night repeatedly, the Players side would have a 2 card 0 or a total of 1 or 2 and the Bankers side would have a two card total of 0. If they were on the Players side they would pull something to reduce them to 0 or stay at the two card total of 1 maybe. Then the Bankers side would pull a real low card, every time, but just enough to beat the Players by say one or two. Then they switch to the Bankers side and then exact same thing began to happen. Once again, their faces and their gestures are comical. Maybe one day they will learn, it is not over until it is over. They can not be over 21 or 22, so maybe they have a total of a year experience or so?
Another night they did pretty well. This is not a high dollar casino, just a $5,000.00 or so table max. But they were up probably $40,000 to $50,000 or so. Then they ran into a section of 15-20 hands where almost every hand is only a 2 card draw. Each side having 6 or better. Like I said, this went on for like a solid 15-20 hands, which in our B&M casinos, means a solid 30-45 minuets of time. Whenever they had a 7, the other side had a Natural 8. If they had a Natural 8 the other side had the same or even a Natural 9.
Watching their faces and their super obvious frustration, produced their extremely noticeable unbelievability. IMO, one knows they obtained their gaming instructions and references from some system or some YouTube $99.00 something another, etc.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on February 24, 2020, 11:12:59 pm
That's why a multiple multi-level random walks distribution will help us to restrict the variance at the lowest limits.
Whenever different random walks would elicit to bet the same side, we know our probability of success will get astounding values, a strong undeniable proof that shoes are not randomly produced or that a kind of detectable dependency works on most part of shoes dealt. Technically it's what we call a "convergence of probability", a term coined several years ago by a roulette expert.
Theorically at any independent or very slight dependent proposition, any random walk (no matter how many r.w.'s we want to launch simultaneously) each spot we decide to bet will get the expected deviations considered at a kind of 50/50 game, say at a 0.5068/0.4932 p values.
Practically things go in a different way, as many spots MUST happen within a restricted range of hands dealt.
All depends on how we want to classify outcomes, and you know the worst tool we can utilize is by considering hands as B or P simple successions. Actually casinos offer those st.u.p.id roads displayed on the screen as they know very well they are totally worthless. Even considering those 5 different derived roads as 5 random walks, no way a convergence of probability may happen as they are taking into account EACH resolved hand (3 roads) or real BPT results (remaining 2 roads).
Remember, I'm here to disprove the real randomness of shoes dealt or the general undetectable slight dependency, it's not a coincidence that my plans get rid of many hands that tend to confuse the whole picture.
Say that after certain conditions are met, we could set up a simpler unb plan #3, one which could wager against the multiple formations of 3+ streaks on both sides.
It's not the final solution to beat this game, nonetheless it's a good start.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on February 25, 2020, 03:00:44 am
What's what I name as a multi-level random walk?
It's a mechanical preordered betting scheme made by building one of the several subcollectives derived from the original BP succession. Not necessarily considering each outcome of the original succession.
As long as the attributes to build such subcollectives remain constant, we know that a supposedly random source must produce the same features on every new collective we had built. Regardless of place selection and probability after events features that definitely will confirm or not the real randomness of the sample.
Next week more about the construction of such r.w.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: Lungyeh on February 25, 2020, 03:30:45 am
Sometimes, ok most times, when I read Asymbacguy posts, I feel myself reading a scientific journal or a chemistry reference book because I am totally lost.
Kudos to your scientific and mathematical approach to the game. I posted before some news about a group mathematically making hundreds of millions from horse betting. So I suppose it can be done also for baccarat or roulette.
I wish I have the mathematical inclination .....
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: Fran7738 on February 28, 2020, 07:25:21 pm
[/fontImo and according to a couple of serious players the best situation to aim for is to win just one unit per shoe. Say per every playable shoe.
If your unit size is 5000$ and you get that win 4 times a week x 50 weeks ... I would be more than happy and then forget about gambling .
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on February 29, 2020, 10:38:31 pm
Thanks Lungyeh, I hope to give you very soon a direct demonstration of what I'm talking about.
@Fran7738, you took the point. I guess many casinos know that bac is beatable, the game is still alive as most players like to gamble. At the winning rate you've suggested the probability of success is very very very close to 1.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on March 01, 2020, 12:24:35 am
Before going into details of what a multi-level random walk is, let me know how the fkng fk you can lose by MM assessing three simple different one-step r.w.'s working on B double consecutiveness considered at the levels #1, #2 and #3. Where #1 and #2 scenarios take an astounding primary role.
Even if casinos know such B doubles detectable distribution, thus maybe voluntarly fixing outcomes to get a lot of consecutive B doubles, we can easily build many other r.w.'s collecting results by undetectable ways, mainly by coding results as I or O results thus negating a random distribution.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: alrelax on March 01, 2020, 02:53:46 am
[/fontImo and according to a couple of serious players the best situation to aim for is to win just one unit per shoe. Say per every playable shoe.
If your unit size is 5000$ and you get that win 4 times a week x 50 weeks ... I would be more than happy and then forget about gambling .
You would need a huge bankroll and I would estimate between $300,000 to $400,000 of disposable income that you can draw down on because you would have periods of 20 to 30 attempts or presentments that will fail.
Anything is possible in the game of Baccarat but if you're going to consecutively wager and have a stop loss of three, four or five units you are going to have a drawdown at least 30 units before you start to even make anything back.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on March 06, 2020, 11:24:23 pm
Putting things in a simple way, bac is beatable itlr as it's made by continuous asymmetrical propositions, most of them not easily detectable by common standards. We are here to (partially) demonstrate that such constant asymmetricity (rules, card distribution, key cards concentration/dilution, finiteness of the shoe) will be endorsed by the paramount inference of unrandomness.
More practically speaking, profitable spots arise from a strict scientifical convergence of probability measure where different r.w.'s dictate or not to wager the same B/P result being the reflex of a I/O situation.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on March 14, 2020, 09:20:31 pm
Suppose we want to classify BP outcomes assigning 1 to any B result and 2 to any P result. Thus a sequence as BPBBBPPBPBP becomes 1-2-1-1-1-2-2-1-2-1-2
Now let's add the number on the left with the adjacent number placed on the right in a way to build another subsequence. In our example, we'll get 3-3-2-2-3-4-3-3-3-3
The number of "runs", that is situations where a number stays at the same level are transformed from 7 in the original sequence to 5 in the new one.
Before continuing let's see what happens on strong streaky BP situations as
here the number of runs is 6 on the original sequence and 11 on the new one.
or a "choppy" sequence as
BPBPBPPBPBBPBPBPBPPBPBPB
1-2-1-2-1-2-2-1-2-1-1-2-1-2-1-2-1-2-2-1-2-1-2-1 =
3-3-3-3-3-4-3-3-3-2-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-4-3-3-3-3
Number of runs shifts from 21 to 7.
Let's try to fictionally build a shoe getting many runs on our new sequence. Easy to do, we need many different sums coming in fast succession. Example:
BPPBBPPBBPPBBPPBBPPBB =
1-2-2-1-1-2-2-1-1-2-2-1-1-2-2-1-1 (runs= 9)
3-4-3-2-3-4-3-2-3-4-3-2-3-4-3-2 (runs= 16)
Nothing special so far, it's just another way to consider the hands distribution taken from a simple B/P point of view. A wrong point of view. But...
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on March 14, 2020, 10:34:37 pm
Those new derived subsequences are not forming random successions as 2 cannot go to 4 and 4 cannot go to 2 without crossing the 3 step. Moreover no matter how whimsical is the original BP succession, any shoe will produce a given number of 2-3 / 3-2 or 3-4 / 4-3 steps.
Notice that we shouldn't give a damned fk about the lenght of same level values, let alone the exact or approximated final number of runs. We instead should focus about the actual probability to get one or a couple of runs on different portions of the shoe.
If the original succession is perfectly randomly placed, the subsequent derived collectives cannot give us profitable betting spots as in order to get an advantage we must put in action certain random walks anyway. I mean that a perfect random original sequence cannot form low dispersion values on derived situations no matter how sophisticated they are intended, what we really need to set up an unbeatable plan.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on March 15, 2020, 01:54:13 am
Next why some random walks applied to baccarat are better than others. The decisive tool to destroy this fkng beautiful game.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on March 20, 2020, 10:40:15 pm
We've seen that every shoe in the universe can be considered just as a 2-3-4 sequence of runs. In my example I've chosen to consider the simple hand to hand registration, meaning that every resolved hand will be eligible to be listed. Moreover hands are considered by a simple B=1 and P=2 registration.
Now say we do not want to simply assign the 1 value to B and 2 value to P, instead 1 to an identical situation and 2 to an opposite situation taken at a given mechanically preordered pace.
If the results succession will be really randomly placed, we know this tool won't affect the dispersion values. Technically speaking, we want to disprove the common knowledge that any mechanical preordered plan will be insensitive to every place selection strategy. The only way to prove this game is beatable.
There are infinite ways to set up random walks trying to disprove a perfect randomness, being the runs distribution the common denominator.
Any bac hand/pattern distribution is a complex result made of three finite different forces acting along a slight dependent model:
1- asymmetricity favoring B side
2- very slight propensity to get the opposite result just happened
3- key cards distribution (low cards should be considered as key cards as 8s/9s)
Taking those three factors together some r.w.'s are more inclined to provide a higher number of runs.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on March 22, 2020, 10:32:02 pm
Making things in a more complicated way, we could set up many different r.w.'s utillizing a pace different than 1. After all the general law of independence of the results should work no matter how deep we want to classify the outcomes, right?
Thus a BPBBPPBPBBBBBBPBPPPPBPBBPPB succession could be
1-2-1-1-2-2-1-2-1-1-1-1-1-1-2-1-2-2-2-2-1-2-1-1-2-2-1 (1 pace) or
1-1-2-1-1-1-1-2-2-2-1-1-2-1 (2 pace) or
1-1-1-1-1-1-2-2-2 (3 pace)
Again summing the two adjacent numbers from left to right we'll get:
Skipping certain outcomes provides a better evaluation of the place selection impact, that is the main factor by which certain subsequences must be considered as collectives or not. And naturally in this example the best indicator is the number of runs.
We should convert what others call "stop loss" or stop wins" cutoff points with the simple number of runs, especially if we want to disprove a real randomness.
Without boring to test many shoes, it's intuitive that a kind of asymmetrical force is acting along the way on the vast majority of shoes dealt, our task should be directed to spot the shoes where such asym force will be more likely to act on certain points.
Now let's sat we want to follow two opposite players, one player A wishing to parlay his bet up to 5 steps toward a new same number situation (being 2, 3 or 4) and the other one B wishing to make a progressive plan toward not getting same number clusters (up to 5 steps).
Player A will win anytime 5 or more consecutive homogeneous situations will show up (2-2..-3-3..-4-4.. 3-3, etc) and player B will win anytime a given number won't be clustered up to 5 times.
From a math point of view both players will get the same results getting different W/L frequencies. In the practice things go quite differently.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on March 23, 2020, 02:17:43 am
Summarizing:
- no way you can find a long term profitable betting plan without speculating that outcomes are not perfectly randomly placed as random bac outcomes are unbeatable by a 1 billion degree.
- to ascertain outcomes are not properly random produced only place selection and probability after events tools can help you by strict scientifically accurate assessments. Some bac productions are better than others, meaning they involve a higher unrandomness factor.
- best way to take an advantage without suffering the variance impact is by looking just for one unit profit per a given amount of hands.
- no matter how's your strategy and which side you choose to bet, each set of two consecutive wagers must get a way higher 75% probability to win. Considering as Banker side as a steady advantaged option is one of the biggest mistake to make. Asym hands favoviring Banker don't come out so often, especially whether consecutively taken.
- the game cannot be altered or predicted by human considerations, otherwise it wouldn't exist.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: alrelax on March 23, 2020, 03:43:41 am
- no way you can find a long term profitable betting plan without speculating that outcomes are not perfectly randomly placed as random bac outcomes are unbeatable by a 1 billion degree.
- to ascertain outcomes are not properly random produced only place selection and probability after events tools can help you by strict scientifically accurate assessments. Some bac productions are better than others, meaning they involve a higher unrandomness factor.
- best way to take an advantage without suffering the variance impact is by looking just for one unit profit per a given amount of hands.
- no matter how's your strategy and which side you choose to bet, each set of two consecutive wagers must get a way higher 75% probability to win. Considering as Banker side as a steady advantaged option is one of the biggest mistake to make. Asym hands favoviring Banker don't come out so often, especially whether consecutively taken.
- the game cannot be altered or predicted by human considerations, otherwise it wouldn't exist.
as.
Explaining certain finds are difficult. Great writing.
Add my Sections & Turning Points and a player can start capitalize!
And so many baccarat players forget about that 5th card coming out that more often favors the players side rather than the bankers. Especially with something that's foreseeable within a section.
Such as when the players have zero or even a 1, so often players pull that big card meaning a six, seven or eight and it puts the bankers out of the game for that hand or the players have that three, four, five or six and the players pull that small card again it puts the bankers out of the game for that hand. And it happens repeatedly within a section like three or four players to one Banker, four or five players to one or two bankers then another one or two or three players to one banker and then three or four players to one or two bankers and then a little mini run comes out of 5, 6, 7, 8 players to one or two Bankers before it straightens out.
And it's so easy to capitalize on all those players versus waiting for the bank to get strong. At least in my opinion, you know what I'm talking about.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on March 23, 2020, 04:22:55 am
Dear friend, I'm just looking forward to play with you and Lung (and maybe few others), I mean serious money I know three of us get.
Let's wait this fkng Covid-19 stuff stops.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: alrelax on March 23, 2020, 05:04:46 am
Oh yeah, don't forget some of the other things I wrote and one of the most important is 0, 1, 2, 3 ties and how things seem to stay the same no matter if it's players or ones and twos or whatever, but I find that holds true more so towards strong players or chopping rather than Banker's clumping together, reference the low amounts of ties such as what's in these two shoes in the link.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on March 23, 2020, 10:06:28 pm
Ties are a complicated issue as any method must get rid of those "unresolved BP hands". Yet they exist consuming space and cards. In addition ties are way more likely when 6 cards are utilized to form a hand.
I fear that shoes containing a lot of ties perhaps are less manageable when using a "fixed" plan, but it would take a lot of time to ascertain their real impact over the different registrations I've discussed here.
Surely after a tie future real BP probabilities change, very slightly maybe still they change.
It should be interesting to study how many cards are utilized per each shoe in relationship of the r.w.'s applied, for example. Notoriously most likely winning hands are formed by only 4 cards then by 5 cards. When more cards are utilized to produce a hand a sort of dilution effect may come out.
Anyway I firmly believe that any valuable method, system or approach when dictating to bet B or P that side must contain a mathematical advantaged situation on the first two cards dealt. Therefore if I passed 70 minutes to wait for a profitable situation and I'm betting Player, I want Player to show a standing or natural point and not a K-4 catching a third card 4 vs a Banker standing 7. Of course we could win a hand as underdog (or losing it as huge favorite), I'd prefer to lose it being favorite.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on March 23, 2020, 10:59:09 pm
Now suppose that in order to build our new sequences, instead of considering normal BP results we use the blue and red spots of the three displayed derived roads (big eye boy, small road and cockroach road). Again we decide to assign the 1 value to red spots and 2 to blue spots. Then we sum the two adjacent numbers from left to right.
Do have those new sequences the same features belonging to the sequences derived by the original BP succession?
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on March 31, 2020, 10:21:10 am
Moreover could we connect in some way the three derived roads in order to get a unique distribution (r.w.) where dispersion values are way lower than expected? Obviously knowing that only when all roads dictate to bet the same side such new r.w. exists and, more importantly, is bettable.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: Lungyeh on March 31, 2020, 10:35:03 am
When all 3 roads predicting the same outcome supported by a definitive ?highway? on the Pearl chart, you can be sure its coming out the opposite. Pearl is the vertical presentation of 6 lines down. ?Highway? means across the horizontal line, all are the same for eg on the 3rd horizontal row across say 4 columns its all Banker so on the 5 th column the highway concept is expecting also a Banker. If this is supporter by all the 3 roads pointing to a banker, I would refrain from betting Banker or maybe minimise my bet as the whole table would be pouring on to Banker.
Its not schadenfreude to see a Player win in such a case but it happens too often. If it is so certain, the casinos would be taken to the cleaners. Just some reading. You of course, are free to disagree.
Stay blessed. First time playing online as Malaysia is locked down and the only casino here, Genting is closed. Online is with live dealers and 5 tables. Interesting. Like the stadium concept
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: alrelax on March 31, 2020, 12:54:01 pm
Can I please interject here and just give my opinion?
That is, it is beatable, but it can also beat you.
The highest majority, not all but the highest majority of all players will not capitalize on the opportunities that are being presented by the shoe and then when they do they are so convinced that's how they can beat it
Then the Dominos fall for the rest of the shoe or the following shoe, if you get what I mean.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on April 03, 2020, 08:39:16 pm
Hi Lungyeh. It's very very very likely players won't build long term profitable random walks (that is r.w.'s getting very low variance) by simply assembling the outcomes of the three derived roads I'm referring to (beb, sr and cockroach r).
And considering bead plate (placing outcomes in columns of 6 hands each) doesn't make the job. Dispersion values applied to such mechanical road are adhering to expected situations, that is to an unbeatable world.
Imo to get a long term profitable plan we must get rid of many unnecessary hands, those tending to surpass certain cutoff values that can easily hurt our strategy. And from a strict statistical point of view, profitable situations won't arise so often. This because a supposedly unrandom world (the only one cause that make us long term winners) wil be quite diluted.
Imo the only way to beat baccarat is by considering strong asymmetrical random walks applied to a slight asymmetrical model as baccarat is.
For example, the situation where "infinite" PBB patterns show up in succession is one of the simplest event we should look for. No matter how many P hands come between a PBB pattern and a new single B hand, we know that our plan starts after a precise situation happened. That is a sort of compromise between the most math probability to get another B and the very very slight propensity to get the opposite hand (P).
Vast majority of card distributions will place asymmetrical results on this plan, not necessarily strong favoring one event or the other one. Of course it could "easily" happen on some shoes that the same asym situation will go on and on, meaning that our asymmetrical strategy will be canceled by an unlikely card distribution transforming a steady asym world into a seemingly symmetrical model.
Later some thoughts about derived roads.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on April 03, 2020, 09:05:23 pm
The highest majority, not all but the highest majority of all players will not capitalize on the opportunities that are being presented by the shoe and then when they do they are so convinced that's how they can beat it
True, yet they do not realize that profitable opportunities won't come out around the corner. That's why casinos entice players to bet every hand dealt, a sure recipe for disaster.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on April 05, 2020, 11:06:58 pm
Think that no way a card distrbution working into an asymmetrical model can get symmetrical results for long and at various degrees. So in some sense and in order to build a long term plan we are compelled to wager towards asymmetricity. Unrandomness enforces such asymmetricity.
Statistically speaking, it's just the number of runs (whatever intended) that confirm or not the randomness of our sample. Since you can take for granted that live shoes aren't random produced, we are forced to evaluate the number and the probability to get asym results per every shoe dealt.
We know that card distributions can produce infinite results, yet the probability to get something is endorsed by restricting outcomes that tend to go beyond given points and we know that the best way to limit the results is by classifying them into 1, 2 and 3 situations.
Transforming into math such probabilites, we know that 1=50%, 2=25% and 3=25%. Of course when wagering B side 1 probability is lower than 2 and, at at a lesser degree, 3>2 and the oppposite is true about P side. Nonetheless and from a strict bet selection point of view, such asym values won't get much of a difference.
Best example is by considering my up #2, spots where we'll win first by hoping for a B single as it's lowering the general B>P propensity as itlr previous BB trigger must involve a kind of already worn-out asymmetrical force (providing BB-B gaps are close). Whether such asym math force hadn't acted yet, probability to get another B hand after a BB pattern is generally endorsed.
For the same reasons any 3 event will be followed or not by another 3 event and the general probability will be always 0.25%. Yet the actual probability is quite lowered or raised in some shoes and dependent on which random walks we choose to follow.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: argalim147 on April 05, 2020, 11:28:20 pm
Think that no way a card distrbution working into an asymmetrical model can get symmetrical results for long and at various degrees. So in some sense and in order to build a long term plan we are compelled to wager towards asymmetricity. Unrandomness enforces such asymmetricity.
Statistically speaking, it's just the number of runs (whatever intended) that confirm or not the randomness of our sample. Since you can take for granted that live shoes aren't random produced, we are forced to evaluate the number and the probability to get asym results per every shoe dealt.
We know that card distributions can produce infinite results, yet the probability to get something is endorsed by restricting outcomes that tend to go beyond given points and we know that the best way to limit the results is by classifying them into 1, 2 and 3 situations.
Transforming into math such probabilites, we know that 1=50%, 2=25% and 3=25%. Of course when wagering B side 1 probability is lower than 2 and, at at a lesser degree, 3>2 and the oppposite is true about P side. Nonetheless and from a strict bet selection point of view, such asym values won't get much of a difference.
Best example is by considering my up #2, spots where we'll win first by hoping for a B single as it's lowering the general B>P propensity as itlr previous BB trigger must involve a kind of already worn-out asymmetrical force (providing BB-B gaps are close). Whether such asym math force hadn't acted yet, probability to get another B hand after a BB pattern is generally endorsed.
For the same reasons any 3 event will be followed or not by another 3 event and the general probability will be always 0.25%. Yet the actual probability is quite lowered or raised in some shoes and dependent on which random walks we choose to follow.
as.
In some baccarat forums i have read that gamblers with a very good success used such strategy - in random.org get a random number from 0 to 1 list and, using 0 as banker and 1 as player, were betting in baccarat. What you can say about such a method where bets are pre-determined ?
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on April 06, 2020, 09:57:48 pm
Difficult to answer without getting enough informations.
I think a predetermined plan must be set up simply by precise arithmetically solutions related to actual situations. Without those we're not going anywhere, imo.
Say I want to bet Player two times at resolved hands #35 and #36 after hands #1 and #23 have all shown Banker. General probability will dictate that my probability of success will be 0.4932 x 0.4932, that is I'll lose both bets 25.68% of the times. But if such hands will not involve an asym situation math favoring B side, the probability to lose is no higher than 25% and probably some card distributions favoring P side are lowering such percentage, hence my two consecutive bets will be EV+. Is this predetermined plan going to get me an advantage? Of course it isn't. Maybe those trigger hands were not involving an asymmetrical situation, thus slight enlarging the probablity to get one right on my selected bets, thus lowering my p.o.s. And vice versa.
Taken the problem by another perspective I could argue that the probability to get all Bankers on hands #1, #23, #35 and #36 is quite lowered as I'm considering distant outcomes.
Thinking this way I could build infinite random walks just to see whether my many 4 hand-patterns will confirm or not the general probability to happen. But it's only the quality factor on the triggers chosen that makes the difference and not a relationship between two very different models not considering the "how".
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on April 12, 2020, 09:00:52 pm
Imo it's only the connection of various patterns happening along any shoe that can make this game beatable. Connection means the relationship working among different situations (r.w.'s) that show up along any shoe. In this way we are not betting toward getting a steady state for long, instead to get a given state change after certain states not belonging to our multiple r.w.'s plan had occurred.
Nothing wrong to "ride" homogeneuos or shifted patterns, providing we have a solid reason to do that. For example, if many asymmetrical hands provided only Player hands (thus inverting a sure general math advantage favoring B) future hands will be more likely to be symmetrically placed, hence any P bet payed 1:1 will be better than any B bet payed 0.95:1. The argument by which future hands will be more likely placed on B side as "it is more due" is ridiculous. Any missed math opportunity having a low frequency of apparition is a missed opportunity for B side, period. But we know that such situations arise by a quite low frequency thus we need more frequent occasions to put our money at risk.
Any shoe that baccarat's gods can provide is formed by multiple pattern steps, name them as runs, homogeneous patterns or whatever. Now casinos will make their business by knowing that itlr our plans will get a lesser amount of homogeneous (easily detectable) patterns than any other situation. Moreover and from a strict math point of view every our bet is EV-, thus we'll surely go broke.
Sometimes shoes will provide easy betting situations (long runs, long chops, strong predominance, etc) and that's the main strategy 99.9% of bac players rely upon. Unfortunately this is a short term favourable occurence.
More interesting is the fact that no matter what will be the future results distribution, some random walks will get an advantage or, better sayed, that some r.w.'s do not dictate to bet anything unless certain conditions are met. Some conditions are easily detcetable and others are more intricated. If this way of thinking would be flawed, dispersion values wouldn't be affected by such kind of selection.
To get a practical example, think about how many 1-2 and 1-3 situations or BB consecutive doubles are coming or not after a given amount of hands dealt.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: alrelax on April 13, 2020, 03:29:22 am
I have posted pics of shoes with what i call, Sections. And exactly what you said here: "Sometimes shoes will provide easy betting situations (long runs, long chops, strong predominance, etc) and that's the main strategy 99.9% of bac players rely upon. Unfortunately this is a short term favourable occurence.", is spot on! With the keywords being, sometimes and short term.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on April 13, 2020, 10:55:03 pm
Exactly and it's not a coincidence that I've started this thread mentioning Kashiwagi and not only because he was one of the biggest high stakes bac player ever.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on April 21, 2020, 10:21:00 pm
Start thinking that any bac shoe dealt is asymmetrically placed as cards cannot be symmetrically placed along any single shoe, moreover as bac rules are not symmetrically intended. It's up to us to spot the situations where such asymmetricity gets a valuable strenght capable to invert the fkng house edge. And to be consistent long term winners we need just few spots to be ahead.
It's intuitive that such asymmetricity cannot last for long or, better sayed, that this asym factor works at different degrees per any shoe dealt.
Notice that I'm not talking about Banker advantage, to get such advantage we need precise situations to appear as P drawing and B getting a 3,4,5 or 6 initial point.
Whenever a given asym level is surpassed (whatever intended), no one prediction is possible as the asym strenght will be "randomly" placed more often than not.
That's why is important to play shoes where asym levels won't reach huge values at the start.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: RickK on April 23, 2020, 12:19:19 pm
as...thanks for your information and perspective. Certainly is more than just interesting....I've read and re-read your posts and not sure I understand all of it, but I was able to use the asymmetrical "hand" in a few live sessions before things shut down...and was pretty successful with it.. in your post above, you refer to asymmetrical shoes...is there a larger asymmetrical picture we should be looking for or tracking in addition the just the individual hands ? Again, appreciate your posts and looking forward to learning more. Thanks again...
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on April 23, 2020, 02:57:27 pm
Hi Rick and thanks!
I know the suggestions I'm disorderly posting cannot give the reader precise betting guidelines, it's made on purpose.
Yep, you took one of the fundamental points to beat bac. Instead of wagering hoping for this or that or, even worse, to play general probabilities, we should focus to understand the asymmetrical level of the actual shoe. To do that we need to put into action several r.w.'s, setting up the actual relative probability compared to the general 0.5068/0.4932 proposition. If the dispersion values taken from a place selection point of view remain unchanged, baccarat is not beatable.
In a sense, we do not want to simply bet toward asymmetricity but instead toward certain different levels of asymmetricity that are present per each shoe dealt. And of course the most favourable situation to look for is 1.
I'll write more on that in few days.
Cheers!
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on April 27, 2020, 09:44:37 pm
A deck of cards shuffled decently is asymmetrical by definition. Let's shuffle numerous times a simple 52 cards deck and register how many times three or four same suit cards are coming out consecutively. Of course after something had happened (say many spades were turned out), the future probability to get those consecutive suited cards on diamonds, clubs and hearts is enlarged in some way. But no one would be so naive to think that after any single diamonds, clubs or hearts card coming out the future probability will be always enlarged or at least included within playable terms (assuming the game is EV-). We could easily get a lot of decks with a low spades impact producing many D,C and H consecutive sequences not belonging to the 3 or 4 same suit occurence we are looking for.
Of course one could think that a possible strategic plan may be oriented NOT to get long same suit sequences up to a point and naturally based upon the partial aknowledge of the removed cards nature as we've seen about the spades example. And one could think that same suit cards on next decks may be "clumped" in some way as a physically perfect shuffle doesn't exist at all.
At baccarat things work differently as removed cards cannot sensibly affect future outcomes, yet baccarat is an asymmetrical proposition at the start and at every single point even without the natural asymmetrical cards impact. Anyway the asym-asym value is so high that it's impossible any single deck dealt in the universe will be symmetrically placed as, simply put, symmetricity at baccarat cannot exist.
Now the problem is to spot the situations where a constant asymmetrical proposition made on two different levels (bac rules and card distribution) will reach very low dispersion values as something is "more due" no matter what.
Suppose casinos know the B doubles vulnerability and start arranging shoes to produce a lot of consecutive B doubles. Who cares? The B double plan is just one random walk, for example many B doubles will entice the probability to get many 1-2 B situations and we need just one to be ahead. Casinos will arrange shoes to get a lot of B doubles and B 3+ streaks without any B single trigger thus destroying one half of my ub #1? Perfect, the vast majority of baccarat players will wager to follow the consecutive B streaks line.
Since almost no one bac shoe won't present at least one B single, we know that either plan #1 or #2 will get at least one win, more often (say everytime) multiple wins.
More on that tomorrow.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on April 28, 2020, 10:22:17 pm
The "alignment" curiosity
Suppose we want to arrange cards forming a shoe which provides all Banker or Player hands. For simplicity we use just one deck.
One of the numerous card distribution producing all banker hands (and no ties) is:
A, A, K, 5, 3, 2, 3, 2, 2, K, 4, 10, 3, 9, 6, Q, J, 7, 5, 8, 5, 8, 5, 8, J, 10, 9, 7, A, Q, A, 6, 6, 4, 10, 4, J, 9, J, 2, 10, K, 4, K, 3, 8, Q, Q, 7, 9. (6,7 left as they can't produce a hand)
Such sequence provides 11 straight Banker hands and no tie:
B B B B B B B B B B B
Now let's remove from the play the first card (A) from the play and see what happens:
P P T B B B B B B B
Or the first two cards (A, A):
B B T B B B B B B B
Finally the first three cards (A, A, K):
P B T B B B B B B B
We see that results are not much affected by burning one, two o three cards and such thing happens with a lot of decks. In a sense we could deduce that this card distribution is Banker polarized; it's just a matter of time that results will be aligned with the original untouched sequence.
Even when multiple decks are utilized or no substantial card clumping is present (as 2-3 and 5-8 in the example), things go quite in the same way, at least on the vast majority of the shoes dealt.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: Lungyeh on April 29, 2020, 03:45:33 am
isn't that because as the number of cards are taken away or used, there will come a time when it coincides with the intended pattern.
Mmm. Its food for thought.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: RickK on May 04, 2020, 01:45:16 pm
View Profile Personal Message (Online) (No subject) ? Sent to: AsymBacGuy on: April 29, 2020, 04:08:40 pm ?ReplyQuoteDelete as....With regard to your last 2 posts, are you indicating that polarized (or strong side) sections of the shoe may be determined by a trigger of some sort, i.e. card values, or asym hands or lack of asym hands ) as opposed to a visual pattern that one side is starting to occur more frequently than the other ? Thanks
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on May 05, 2020, 09:13:40 pm
Hi Rickk!
Obviously patterns are the direct product of either math and card distribution. To be consistent winners on long terms we need both.
For example there's no point to bet Banker if we have reasons to think that no asym hands will come out shortly or, it's the same, that many previous asym hands got the Player side winning. We can't get a shoe featuring 20 or zero asym hands, anyway naturals and standing points must show up at a value well exceeding 1/3 of the total hands dealt. Those situations are the math advantaged hands, even though a favorite standing 7 will lose to a natural 8 or to a miracle 6 falling to the opposite underdog 2 point. How much those "unfortunate" (or mistakenly considered "lucky") events will impact over the long run? I guess at a lesser degree than what the most likely course is going to take along the way.
Therefore a valuable betting method must be set up onto two different levels: math advantaged situations or card distributions so polarized that even the Player side may be slight advantaged.
We see that it's more difficult to spot or concentrate real Banker advantaged situations as the asym general probability is 8.4%, whereas Player side can be underdog just on those asym hands. Of course Player side never get the astounding math advantage of 15.86% working on its asym hands, even knowing that the asym impact is a well finite factor.
Example.
We set up a mechanical plan dictating to bet one time Player side after any asym hand was produced. If a couple of asym hands were formed we'll stop the betting (that is we are trying to isolate asym math advantaged hands) On average we'll bet 6 or 7 times, we will be hugely underdog only when consecutive asym hands will be formed. In the remaining cases we are at least playing a 0.5 no negative edge game (as linear card counting is a bighornshit). Naturally itlr we'll expect to get the same asym-sym and asym-asym ratios, yet the asym/total hands dealt ratio is quite restricted. And altogether naturally is that post asym hands situations are 50% dealt but one side is payed 0.95:1 and the other one 1:1.
Our new random walk wagering 6 or 7 hands per shoe is moving around two very different probabilities: the first probability is to get or not get another strong math advantaged situation favoring B, second probability is surely set up around the 0.5 value. It's the simplest example of 'probability after events' feature. Think that we can take into account what happens after two or more hands after an asym hand happened or after a couple of consecutive asym hands, thus building infinite random walks.
Now it's the actual card distribution that plays the decisive role as symmetricity cannot exist at all at baccarat.
The idea to restrict the succession of outcomes within simple categories working under specific circumstances tries to approximate at best the actual card distribution. Imo and according to our long term data, 1-2, 1-3 and B2-B1/B3 are among the best indicators of the actual card distribution.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on May 06, 2020, 11:51:36 pm
A) 1-2
1-2 is the state where key cards are arranged quite proportionally along a given section of the shoe. It's impossible or very very very very unlikely that a common B/P registration of such state can last for the entire shoe or most part of the shoe. A luxury offered by utlizing other form of random walks. Obviously itlr 1-2 works better on P side than on B side. Not surprisingly when the 1-2 state seem to be silent at the start of the shoe, the remaning portions of the shoe more often than not contain short 1-2 states. Naturally all depends about how good or bad are shuffled the cards.
B) 1-3
1-3 state is less likely to provide very long patterns and that's quite curious as given 1 as a costant, 2 should be equal to 3. Moreover 3 consumes more space than 2s thus increasing the probability to get an entire shoe or most part of it featuring this 1-3 state. In some way we could infer that a proportional key cards third-level arrangement on both sides is more unlikely, unless B keep forming 3s and P shows up in singles. Or, of course, that few 3s are interleft with many singles. But this being the case, we should just focus our betting on singles without risking the second bet.
C) 2-3
This state is like betting toward getting consecutive streaks, period. In reality many shoes produce long consecutive streaks of any lenght, of course if I've omitted this state in my plans there's a reason. And the main reason is variance. Differently to the above states, this one-level state cannot get a backup plan: either we win or we lose. And imo and according to my data there's no valid selection to try to get a kind of advantage as we can only hope that cards are clustered in one way and just one time each.
Imo the value of such state should be indirectly taken. More often than not long 2-3 situations endorse the subsequent probability of A and B states.
D) B2/B1-B3
This state starts its course after a precise condition will be met, that is a B double apparition. Itlr any B double is the product of an asymmetrical value, even at a slight degree. That is a small percentage of every B double is asymmetrically placed differently to what happens at Player side where such force must act oppositely. Now we want to challenge the actual card distribution to get within a couple of hands either a quite proportional key cards distribution (Player side apparition) or, whether our previous attempt failed, a relatively shifted key cards distribution or asym situation favoring the same winning side (Banker). In a word we're challenging the shoe to form another "same" situation just happened on that B side. And we can do this two times (betting after two B consecutive doubles), three times and so on.
In normal conditions and naturally itlr, this plan doesn't guarantee us a profit (and the same is true about the other plans) but the dispersion values calculated upon this plan are well lower than what we have been taught for years, that is that no matter which spot we select to bet into, probabilties will remain the same.
Actually tests made on LIVE shoes suggest that B doubles quality and B doubles consecutiveness produced at the start of a shoe can be a valuable trigger to evaluate the probability to get or not more B doubles.
Next time we'll see "albalaha way" how to manage real live unfortunate shoes that seem to disrupt those plans.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: Ted009 on May 08, 2020, 08:21:35 am
Please forgive my honest 2 cent opinion here. I want to say it as honestly as I am allowed to say it here-
To win baccarat consistently or to make a living in playing baccarat, there are many many factors associated with it. Yes, discipline, patience, tutelage of the game, determination and the will, sufficiently allotted bankroll and bet selection along with the right progression is a must. For me after 17 years of learning and playing the game with real money, the most important factor in winning the game consistently is bet selection and progression. They must be equally utilized.
Know when to walk out and when to walk in.
No amount of computer testing and or practice based on the theoretical approaches will be accomplished without hands on at the table playing with your hard earned money. I don?t want any new potential or prospect players to think that it is a piece of cake to make a living playing baccarat or to win the money consistently. There is no holy grail period.
Please read, learn and practice with real money at the table. Win or lose, strive to improve it from there.
My playing approaches are random vs random based on mathematical equations on progression. I set up my winning target and stop loss per session. Am I winning all the time, hell no. I win consistently and more than I lose, yes!
Please stay well and safe. I wish you, my fellow players, all the best..
Alrelax: please be kind to close my user account. You are welcome to communicate with me by other means because you my contact information.
Best regards, Ted
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: alrelax on May 08, 2020, 08:30:00 am
So very very very true to the millionth power, past the School of Hard Knocks over the Wild Blue Yonder and past all the other agonizing metaphors, that exist in the world of Baccarat I quote the following:
"Know when to walk out and when to walk in.
No amount of computer testing and or practice based on the theoretical approaches will be accomplished without hands on at the table playing with your hard earned money. I don't want any new potential or prospect players to think that it is a piece of cake to make a living playing baccarat or to win the money consistently. There is no holy grail period.
Please read, learn and practice with real money at the table. Win or lose, strive to improve it from there."
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on May 11, 2020, 11:30:25 pm
Thanks for your contributes, but I'm afraid people want to know precisely the situations when to ride in and when to jump out of the shoe they're playing at. Baccarat could be a form of both art and science, I still prefer the latter form as most players do not have the proper experience to learn the "when" and the "how" as Al or others can do.
If B2/B1-B3 plan could get us possible valuable hints to consider bac outcomes, in order to spot some long term features let's take the asym counterpart, that is the P2/P1-P3 opposite situation.
Again let's extract 10 shoes randomly from a live shoes data.
1) 2-1-1-2-2-1
2) 1-1-1
3) 2-1-1-1
4) 1
5) 1-2
6) 1-1-1
7) 1-1-3*
8) 1-1-1
9) 1-1-1
10) 1-1-2-3-2-1
Obviously we could infer that P consecutive doubles must show up by higher percentages than B doubles. After all B2<B3 and P2>P3 itlr. True, but at the same time P1>P2, so now we get two exact opposite forces acting after each P double apparition. Knowing of course that P2>P3 so lowering the probability of success of second bets made on such P plan.
It's the same conclusion made on B doubles: from one part something is "generally" more likely (B3>B2) and something will be "actually" more likely (B1>B2+), now considering Player side respectively reversed by P1>P2 (general) and P3>P2 (actual) values.
It's not a coincidence that we need a couple of "homogeneous" outcomes happening at the same side to be considered as triggers.
Itlr B-B is an asymmetrical situation as well as is a P-P pattern. But a perfect symmetrical card distribution cannot happen by any means, especially whether bac rules dictate otherwise. Even though this kind of asymmetricity seem to produce "symmetrical" results, we should know that it's impossible to get perfect sym outcomes for long, for the simple reason that at baccarat nothing is symmetrical or at least that a mistakenly sym perceived world cannot last for long.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on May 12, 2020, 12:01:17 am
More P2/P1-P3 results randomly taken:
1-1-1
3-1-1-2-1-*
1-2-1-1-1
1-2-1-1
1-1
1-1
1-2-1
1-1-1-1
1-1-1
1
3
1-1-1
2-1-3
2-1-2-1
1-1-1-*
1-1-2-2
1-1-1-3
1-1-1-2-1-2
2-2
1-1-1
3-2-2
1
1-1-2-1
1-1-1-2
1-1-1
1-2-2-1
1-1
2-1-1-1
1-2-1-1
1-1-1
1-2
2-1
1-1-1
2-4
1-1-1-1
2-1-1-1
1-1-1
2-1-1-1
1-2-1
1-1-1-1
1-1-1-1
Now only a real id.iot could lose at those different B/P situations that MUST happen along each shoe. Especially at 8-deck shoes.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on May 13, 2020, 09:53:49 pm
Is B plan better than P or vice versa? What about a plan considering both strategies simultaneously as a whole? What about other strategies linked to those different one-side situations?
Let's start with the both sides plan, that is always wagering toward getting a B1/B3 or P1/P3 after a B2 or P2 trigger up to some levels.
Obviously we'll get many losses when many BB or PP doubles are coming consecutively, a kind of costant symmetrical situation but acting asymmetrically after one single hand is dealt, for each single hand considered itlr has a Bp=0.5068 and Pp=0.4932. We shouldn't give a fk whether a given BBPPBBPPBBPP pattern (or when many other B/P doubles patterns provide more consecutive doubles) will be only formed by symmetrical situations, itlr and on average per every 12 resolved hands one asymmetrical hand favoring B side must happen (for simplicity here I omit the asym hand apparition producing a tie). And we know that many B favored hands can easily make the Player side winning.
Moreover unless a third card is exactly a zero value card, asym hands involve various degrees of B advantage, sometimes even unfavorite math situations as when Banker gets an initial 4 point and the third card is an Ace (slight negative EV as B should draw and not standing).
Baccarat is a game governed by asymmetrical states for rules and card distribution and when certain asymmetrical situations tend to produce symmetrical second-level (or higher) states we might endure some harsh times.
If by various causes, the asymmetricity will be so balanced along the vast or even the entire portion of the shoe, we're not going anywhere, thus imo not every shoe is playable.
A strong predominance of one side could be a kind of an extreme asymmetrical state being so simple to be detected. Unfortunately vast majority of shoes dealt do not belong to such category and moderate/light predominances are assessed after such state happened. In addition, a simple B or P predominance is just a back to back unidirectional issue, mostly taken without considering the actual conditions that favored one side for long.
Thus we shouldn't bet on how long the asymmetricity works but about when it's more likely to produce given results on the side chosen.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on May 13, 2020, 10:54:34 pm
Let's see what happens on those 20 live shoes taken randomly:
B plan: 1-1 P plan: 2-1-2
B plan: 2-1 P plan: 1-1-1
B plan: 1-1-2 P plan: 2-1
B plan: 1-1-1 P plan: 1-1-1-2-2
B plan: 1-1-1-1-1 P plan 2-1
B plan: 1-1-1 P plan 2
B plan: 1-1-2 P plan: 1
B plan: 1-1-2-1-1 P plan: 2-1
B plan: 1-2 P plan: 2-2-1-1
B plan: 1-2 P plan: 1-1-1
B plan: 2-2-2 P plan: no triggers
B plan: 1-1 P plan: 1-2-2
B plan: 2-2 P plan: 1-1-1-1
B plan: 3-1 P plan: 1-1-1
B plan: 1-2-1 P plan: 2-1-2-1
B plan: 1-1-1-3 P plan: 2-2-2
B plan: 1-1 P plan: 1-2
B plan: 1-1-1 P plan: 1-1-2
B plan: 3-1-1 P plan: 1-1
B plan: 1-1-1-1-2 P plan: 1-2-2-1-1
Fortunate shoes? Probably not, as 1=76; 2=34 and 3=3
Since any 2 or 3 (or higher) occurence causes a -3 unit deficit providing a 1-2 mini progression made toward the 1 appearance and 1 just means +1, we'll get (before tax) 76 unit wins and 103 unit losses for a net loss of -27 units. More interesting is that in this sample betting not to get 3 after 2 means 34 units of profits vs a 9 (3x3) unit loss. That is (before tax) a 25 units profit.
Does this ridiculously small sample suggesting that betting 2 after 2 vs 3+ will provide an advantage whereas the 1 vs 2+ proposition is a long term losing bet? No way, naturally. Those short term frequencies just suggest that the asymmetricity overall acted lightly at 1-level degree and very well at 2-level degree. Indeed we could face shoes getting very different values of asymmetricity, anyway we are pretty sure that smaller classes will overwhelm superior values, all depending upon how good or bad are shuffled the cards.
Of course and regardless of the asymmetricity value acting on the actual shoe, by both place selection and probability after events tools use, many random walks can be built getting ridiculously (now on the positive side) low dispersion values.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on May 14, 2020, 12:59:14 am
More shoes:
B: 1 P: 1-1-1-1
B: 1-1-2-3 P: 1-1-1-1
B: 1-4-1 P: 1-3
B: 1-1-1-1 P: 3-1-1
B: 1-1-3-1-2 P: 1-1-1
B: 1-1-1-1 P: 1-1-1
B: 1-1-2-2-2* P: 1-2*
B: 1-1-1-1-2 P: 1-1-3-1-1
B: no triggers P: 1-2*
B: 1-1 P: 3*
B: 1-1 P: 1-3-1-1
B: 1 P: 1-3
B: 2-1-2 P: 1-4-1-1
B: 1-2* P: 1-2*
B: 1-1 P: 1-4-1
B: 2-1-1-1 P: 1-1-1
B: 1-1-1 P: 1-1-1-1-1
B: 1-1-1 P: no triggers
B: 1-2-1 P: 1-1
B: 1-1-1-1-1 P: 1-1-1-2
Total 1=91 2=15 3+=11
Now betting 1 vs 2+= +13 before tax; 2 vs 3+= -18
Now asymmetricity considered the way discussed so far went right on the first level.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on May 17, 2020, 10:31:38 pm
In reality the above P plan doesn't get the same variance features happening on the same B plan. Even if shoes presented above were randomly taken, P side formed too many 1 or 2 situations than expected as itlr a lot of 3, 4 or higher numbers will be produced, especially whether consecutively considered. That's why my ub #2 didn't consider P side.
Let's try to give a formal answer to this.
If in order to set up our future betting plan we take BB and PP as symmetrical triggers we are making a mistake at the start.
Itlr every BB pattern is already a natural asymmetrical situation as math tend to shift the probability to B side after any given value that now we set after a single fresh B apparition. On the other hand, itlr PP is already an artificial asymmetrical pattern as in some sense was slightly fighting against the math. Therefore BB and PP patterns cannot be considered triggers springing up from the same probability. Actually most of the times are, but not itlr.
No matter what happens in between (just to simplify the things here), any new fresh B situation must fight with a new probability after any previous BB pattern had formed. If we decide to always wager toward a B streak after any BB pattern previous production, we are simply implying that the asym value must act again just on this limited section of the shoe or, that whether the asym didn't act on the previous BB pattern, now it's more likely to work. In addition, itlr the BB trigger involves a certain degree of "exhaustion" of asym force as the next hand is P. That's why we could infer that itlr any fresh B appearance next to another exact BB pattern will be somewhat restricted to produce another B streak, thus orienting us to bet one time P side. Whether this bet went wrong, we are challenging the actual card distribution to give another precise BB pattern, that is missing our plan two times (or more) in a row.
The PP counterpart is easier to be considered as an actual "artificial" asym strenght already worked. Thus after PP itlr the more likely outcome will be a P single and not a P 3+ streak whether the first bet failed (meaning a PP occurence). Thus lowering a lot the winning probability of our second attempt.
Overall and itlr the B2/B1 strenght will be more powerful than the P2/P3 strenght of course considering that both bets are mathematically facing the same 1:1 payment.
Player side must be attacked by other weapons.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on May 19, 2020, 11:20:11 pm
Player side is more difficult to be assessed despite of its slight lesser probability to appear. When betting P side we are simply wagering that key cards must be shifted toward this side at various degrees and in the meantime that no asymmetrical B favoring situation will arise.
Since we know that almost every shoe isn't immune to such asym probability, we could infer that is virtually impossible to wager Player getting a steady 0.5 winning probability fairly payed (1:1).
In a sense when betting Player we are hoping about two orders of things:
a- no asym hand will take place at the time of our betting
b- key cards are shifted toward Player side
Oppositely thinking, we could reckon that B side is really advantaged only when an asym hand will come out within a restricted range of hands as the key cards shift is anyway burdened by a 5% vigorish.
Now let's think about the probability where our plan will get all positive Player betting situations upon a given shoe. Say this is our gold standard.
1- wagering toward getting all P singles.
2- wagering toward getting all P doubles
3- wagering toward getting all P 3+ streaks
4- any mix of the above situations
No need to test many shoes, almost no one single situation belonging to #1, #2 and #3 category will provide all winnings. Then in order to increase such probability even at the risk of losing more money, we try to couple two different scenarios.
1-2: well, this situation may happen, mostly when many P doubles are formed or when P singles are interpolated by long B streaks.
1-3: situation less likely than the previous one, yet it could happen.
2-3: no way an 8-deck shoe is likely to show all P streaks, of course here the winning/losing probability remains confined at 0.5 at best.
If we aim to get all wins on our bets obviously we must rely upon the probability that things are going right just at the start. Therefore plans 1-2 and 1-3 are more likely to provide this kind of jackpot, either as they involve a 0.75% or so probability to win and as 2-3 plan isn't going to form winnings at the whole played shoe.
Naturally such jackpot is just an ideal situation thus forcing us to build our betting plan upon lower degree probabilities. Yet some quality factors endorse the probability to get or not the expected long winning streak we should aim for.
Moreover those 1-2 and 1-3 plans are just considered by a mere B/P pattern random walk point of view. That is not properly considering the actual conditions where those results were formed.
A thing discussed next
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on May 24, 2020, 10:18:43 pm
The decisive tool to test any B/P system is by considering the limiting values of relative frequency of EVERY possible shoe's pattern, thus covering how it fares through every possible card distribution.
The ploy to restrict the outcomes into three classes will help us a lot for two reasons.
First, baccarat features the very slight propensity to produce the opposite result already happened;
Secondly, after the 3 level is reached we may consider all 3+ superior classes the same as 3s.
Since it may appear so easy to simply bet toward shorter patterns as singles and doubles, we should focus our interest about those 3s distribution.
3s and 3+s are by definition asymmetrical situations even if a given 3+ is composed by a BBBBBB sequence or PPPP pattern as they get or not a given probability of taking advantage (B side) or shifting (P side) the asym force determined by the rules.
Of course pure 3s (streaks of just three B/P hands) are more likely to be the product of sym situations as the overall asym probability is confined to 8.6% over the total hands dealt. The longer any streak is forming higher will be the probability to cross an asym situation as virtually (and practically) no shoe is producing all symmetrical events. And we know that not all asym hands will form a B decision, of course.
It could easily happen that asym hands may come out within shorter BP patterns, for example after a single B result or after a single P hand or after a couple of the same situations. Thus, for example, betting itlr toward P singles and P doubles just mean to hope that the asym force will happen right on those spots as the mere symmetrical force cannot be of any help other than for short term variance issues.
Itlr, our profit can only and only come out just when the sum of our Player bets were placed on sym hands payed 1:1 and when our Banker bets were getting a quite higher than 8.6/91.4 ratio. Naturally those P bets must involve more than a strenght of sym value, mostly in form of more likely card distribution, whereas B bets generally rely upon a selected endorsed math probability.
Back to the "everything is possible" shoe production. We could think the bac shoe situation as a continuous 1-2-3 succession, knowing that homogeneous 1 or 2 or 3 situations aren't going to happen. But two situations out of three are more likely to happen along the entire lenght of the shoe and we know we had to discard 2-3 situations unless happening at B side (with the additional help of B2/B1 apparition). We are so sure about that that a multilayered progression made on B doubles consecutiveness will cross very soon a certain "jackpot" situation, the same but at a lower degree when considering two or more consecutive wins when applied to the 1/2 and 1/3 method.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on May 24, 2020, 10:51:52 pm
Examples taken from Wynn and Gold Coast live shoes data.
1-2 and 1-3 plans joined with B2/B1-B3 attacks made on the entire shoe regardless of asym/sym quality assessment.
Not surprisingly in the first shoe presented most asym hands went "wrong" for B side despite of the math advantage.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on May 26, 2020, 10:09:42 pm
Let's consider our old three different states where every pattern in the universe will belong to.
Generally speaking, the less will be the number of states occurring at a given shoe, better will be the probability to get long winning streaks as a single state or, more likely, a couple of states may be present for long without the "intrusive" effect of the unwelcome third one.
On the other end, we've seen that another strategy relies just upon the opposite thought, that is that certain spots must change their shape in a way or another.
Let's start to examine the theorically "perfect" situations capable to get the highest number of states change happening along any shoe.
When three different states are involved, only six possibilities getting ALL change states come around :
An "endless" succession of 1-2-3-1-2-3-1-2-3.... or 1-3-2-1-3-2-1-3-2... or 2-1-3-2-1-3-2-1-3... or 2-3-1-2-3-1-2-3-1... or 3-1-2-3-1-2-3-1-2... or 3-2-1-3-2-1-3-2-1....
Everything in between gets at least one "winning" situation, that is the third state must be silent for more than the 3-step steady pace featured on the above six patterns.
Notice that all six patterns came out by a 1/3 singles/streaks ratio instead of the more natural 1/1 ratio, meaning that those patterns are "biased" at the start. Yet we are not interested about the numbers but about the pace.
In a sense we're trying to put in relationship those 6 different "biased" (hence asymmetrical) patterns with the actual natural asymmetrical production, not assigning a precise value to any side or value (as in no way itlr B1=P1, B2=P2 and B3=P3, not mentioning that in the overwhelming majority of times the "3" category inglobes very different patterns).
Even though many "natural" big road or derived roads registrations may offer some profitable opportunities, we need to set up more intricated random walks applied to the actual results' production.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on May 26, 2020, 11:23:30 pm
A couple of examples taken randomly.
Original shoe results: 2-1-2-1-2-2-1-1-2-1-3-2-1-3-3-1-3-1-3-1-1-1-1-1-1-2-2-3-1-2-2-2-1-1-1
Even though original shoes were presented by the stupi.dest way of registration (big road) and that many - signs are getting us a -3 unit loss and nearly half of + signs are getting us an inferior +1 payment, some +/- situations are more "due" than others.
Notice that unb plan #1 worked wonderfully on first shoe but quite tremendously bad on the second one. First shoe presented 21 states change and second shoe 27 states change.
1-step level unb plan #2 results got respectively a LWWW and WW events.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on May 27, 2020, 12:06:25 am
Another live shoe taken from the now defunct Lucky Dragon casino:
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on May 27, 2020, 01:14:09 am
In the last shoe notice how would fare a cumulative strategy applied simultaneously to every 6 possible "highest state" number pattern:
1. - - + + + +
2. - + + + + -
3. + + + - + -
4. + + + + + -
5. - + + + + -
6. + + + - + -
7. + + - + + +
8. + + - + - +
9. + - + + - +
10. + - + + + +
11. + - + + + +
12. + - + + - +
13. + + - - + +
14. - + + + + -
15. + - + + - +
16. + + - - + +
17. + + - + - +
18. + + + - + -
19. + + + + - -
20. + + - + - +
21. + + + - +
22. - - + + + +
23. + - - + - +
24. + + + + - -
25. - - + + + -
26. + + + + - -
27. + - + + - -
28. + + + + - -
29. - + + + + -
30. + + + - + -
31. - - + + + +
32. + + - + + +
33. + + + - - -
34. - - + + + +
35. + + - + + +
36. + + + - - -
37. + + - - + +
38. - + - + + -
39. - + + + + +
40. - - - + + +
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: RickK on June 01, 2020, 09:08:44 pm
as...really lost here on what you are recording when you are charting shoes...any chance you could drop back a few steps and maybe take the first shoe you charted and explain a little more about what the numbers represent, i.e. numbers of a particular event, where they developed in the shoe, or anything that might explain it a little more ?...sorry if it's obvious..just not getting it here...Rick
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: RickK on June 02, 2020, 12:02:02 pm
At the top of page 10, you show P2/P1-P3 results. Does each number represent a P2-P1 (2 events) and/or a P2-P3 ? A 1 would be the 2 event combination occurred a single time ? And a 2 would be it occurred two times in a row ?
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on June 02, 2020, 08:02:19 pm
Hi Rickk.
Numbers register how many P2 doubles come out after an initial P2 "trigger": if P2 is limited by an immediate P1 or P3 the number registered will be 1. If a couple of P2 patterns come around consecutively, we'll write 2. If three P2 patterns show up we'll write 3 and so on.
Example.
BPPBBBPBPPBBPPBBBBBPBPBBPPBPPBBPPBPPBPPPBPPBBBPPPPB according to the P2/P1-P3 r.w is:
1-2-4-2
In the same sequence the B2/B1-B3 r.w. is read as:
1-1-1
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: RickK on June 02, 2020, 08:36:11 pm
Thank you...
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on June 02, 2020, 08:48:57 pm
You are welcome! :-)
Obviously the level of asymmetricity (generally intended) of each shoe dealt is strictly related to the actual card distribution. Same shoes dealt and shuffled poorly tend to mantain the same level of asymmetricity but very often detected by different patterns' shapes. That's why we need several r.w.'s operating for us.
Since 1-2, 1-3 and B2/B1-B3 and P2/P1-P3 cover all the most frequent possibilities at various degrees, we might get a more precise idea about how "asymmetrically" cards are distributed along the actual shoe. Or, better sayed, which spots are more likely to be asymmetrically distributed.
Any 2-hand attack features a theorical winning probability of 0.75 on symmetrical hands and various different probabilities when one of two asymmetrical hands come along. For example, if our plan dictates to wager P side two times and two asym hands come out, the P winning probability is restricted to about 0.6645. In the same example, just one asym hand coming out on our two P betting attempts shifts the P winning probability to about 0.71.
Naturally asym hands don't come out around the corner, therefore many "more likely Banker outcomes" should be assessed by the actual quality/quantity pattern distribution. We do not want to bet a side being unnecessarily payed 0.95:1, especially when the actual distribution seems to privilege the symmetrical hands formation.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on June 03, 2020, 02:15:25 am
Tomorrow I'll discuss nonsense topics as "quit when you are ahead", "secure a profit", and the more intriguing "stop win or stop loss", all "human factors" that cannot alter in our favor the natural flow of the game.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: Albalaha on June 03, 2020, 07:12:10 am
Tomorrow I'll discuss nonsense topics as "quit when you are ahead", "secure a profit", and the more intriguing "stop win or stop loss", all "human factors" that cannot alter in our favor the natural flow of the game.
as.
Only a strategy meant for long run works that can cater to the worst and the best alike. "Quit when ahead" or "stop loss or stop win" could only be a strategy for ending a day's game and nothing else. It does not make you a winner, in any manner. Do remember, you can not predict what will happen in your next session.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on June 03, 2020, 10:38:43 pm
Exactly Alba! :thumbsup:
"Secure a profit"
If we think to get an edge at a given game and conditions are favourable, we should stay and play regardless of the actual economical situation. As Albalaha sayed, it's only the long run which counts and itlr everything will come out, thus to secure a profit means "I know I'll surely lose, better to get the illusion to be ahead of something now". Instead a proper formulation should be: favourable conditions are met, the more I play the more I'll win. Period.
"Quit when you are ahead"
Same bigornsh.it as above. Our play cannot be splitted into sessions, it's just an infinite series of bets where the cumulative number of times we are ahead (by a W/L ratio) is equal to the cumulative number of times we are behind, all aggravated by the fact that bets are unfair payed in a way or another. In some sense and oppositely thinking, the specular statement should be "do not quit when behind", a statement particularly liked by casinos.
"Stop win" and "Stop loss"
It depends about what we are considering. Each class of Ws and Ls follow a general probability and an actual probability. For example I've presented random walks having a general probability to produce all wins for the entire lenght of the shoe, hence lowering the value of a stop win strategy. On the other hand, some shoes will form many back to back losses that make a future winning streak less probable (mainly for a lack of space).
The actual probability, imo, should be considered either by a simple pattern point of view and, more importantly, by certain quality factors prompting the hands formation.
In no way we could think to hope for a preordered amount of W units either per each shoe or per a series of shoes as we do not know how things will develop and the same is true about Ls situations.
Knowing that the actual shoe has a probability different from zero to produce all winnings represents a good start. Conversely, cards distributions forming unlikely "losing" situations at the start (albeit due for obvious reasons regarding variance) are not going to produce specular winning counterparts. It's like stating that key cards clumped toward one side at the beginning are symmetrically clumped toward the opposite side thereafter.
Of course people making a living at numbers like to wager toward the unlikelihood that something won't happen, thus betting toward slight or intermediate more likely situations. And more often than not the initial-mid sections of the actual shoe are offering us good hints.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on June 07, 2020, 09:44:50 pm
To get the idea that at baccarat things are constantly moving around clumps of key cards each time removed from the deck and then affecting or not the next results, let's shuffle an 8-deck shoe then taking out randomly, say 40 consecutive cards, and see what are the real outcomes coming out infinitely from this 40 cards sample.
Since our sample is randomly/randomly taken and on average we'll get about 7 hands (in form of B, P and T hands) we shouldn't expect to get other than a random pattern (ties ignored for simplicity) belonging to one of the possible 128 distributions. Of course patterns containing more B decisions will overcome the same P counterpart, as sooner or later this finite card distribution will produce some asym hands at various degrees. And we all know the overall general probability to get an asym hand is 8.6%.
Since it's impossible to know which side will be more favored to win unless cards will form one or more asymmetrical hands, we could think to operate about the unlikelihood that long symmetrical patterns will happen along the way by the simplest form of symmetrical card distribution tools acting (or not) at various degrees.
Considering my above example, any 8-deck shoe is formed by at least nine 40-cards situations, each belonging to a given real asym/sym ratio and/or real sym/sym ratio, all producing each 7 different patterns. In some sense there's no one single possibility in the world that homogeneous quality outcomes are going to produce the same quality back to back ratios occurred within consecutive portions of the deck.
More on that later.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on June 09, 2020, 10:10:37 pm
"Points" of interest
What is the long term distribution of Banker and Player final points?
Contrary to what many could think, only two categories of points will get the same probability to appear on both sides. And of course those two are natural 8s and natural 9s. Every other point category will feature a different probability whether we are considering Banker or Player. Another form to think about asymmetricity.
Hence the only situations where final points get a real symmetrical probability occur with naturals. Not even 6s and 7s will get a symmetrical probability (for obvious reasons).
That's why the Dragon bonus side bet involves a quite different house edge depending upon the side we choose to bet (by far the house edge is a lot lower on P side bets).
The slightest difference between same point B and P probabilities comes with "3" and "7" points. Then about non natural 8s and 9s, 0, 1 and 2 points. Then "6" points. Greatest gap in probability exists with 4s and 5s. (Obviously)
On average a deck will form around 19% of naturals on either side, thus around 4/5 of the total hands dealt are following a more or less pronounced asymmetricity. Naturally we are not talking about more likely B or P outcomes, just about long term final points probability.
Of course the higher the point the better is the probability to win, yet itlr those point gaps are constantly moving around fixed probabilities, each point fighting with a general and an actual shoe probability.
Taken from another point of view, we should see that if 4s and 5s are the more gapped final points (5.4%) then a kind of Banker advantage is more concentrated right on those exact B final points. And we know this being absolutely correct as most asym B edge comes from standing 4s and 5s.
Well, standing. And not all 4s and 5s stand after Player draws. Not mentioning that some 4s must stand when a third card ace id dealt to the Player, a slight negative edge situation. And 4s and 5s cannot come infinitely.
The third more pronounced gap situation between same points is about point 6, now favoring Player side and accounting to around 1.1%. That is that we'll get more P 6 final points than B 6 final points and of course a 6 point is long term favorite to win.
Cumulatively and regarding final points distribution, B 4s, B 5s and P 6s get a nearly 6.6% general asymmetrical probability to appear that we should compare to the actual shoe situations.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on June 12, 2020, 11:46:46 pm
If baccarat is a constant asymmetrical game, first we should focus our attention about real symmetrical probabilities. More specifically about the lenght of those sym probabilities.
A perfect world dictates that whether a baccarat shoe won't produce asym B favored hands, a constant Player wagering will get at least a zero negative edge against the house. Oppositely, ONLY a higher than 8.6:91.4 asym/sym hands ratio will lower, erase or invert the house edge on B wagers.
On average, an asym hand will come out about one time over 11.62 hands. To simplify say we'll get one asym hand out of 12 hands and some of them are producing a tie hand. We also know that a 8.6% probability, differently to other gambling games, cannot be silent per every shoe dealt (that is within a 75-80 hands sample). Therefore we might imply that no matter how whimsically is the actual card distribution, sooner or later probabilities will change from 0.5/0.5 to 0.5793/0.4203.
In a sense, now we are not interested about how things seem to develop but about will be the probability to cross either 0.5/0.5 or 0.5793/0.4203 events. That is how much and how many times those two different probabilities change in our actual shoe.
But there's a third important factor to be examined. That is how asym hands went as more than four out of ten times a shifted math probability favoring B side will be "disregarded".
Now we could consider any shoe as a finite world made by many subsequences of sym/asym hands; on their part asym hands will form further sequences of W/L patterns.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: RickK on June 14, 2020, 02:17:42 pm
But there's a third important factor to be examined. That is how asym hands went as more than four out of ten times a shifted math probability favoring B side will be "disregarded".
Any chance you could explain that a little further? Are you saying to be aware that the favored B side after an asym hand may may not be happening and to make an adjustment?
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on June 14, 2020, 11:25:04 pm
Neglecting ties for simplicity, any possible hand will get those true percentages for the player:
Betting B at any asym hand: +0.95 x 57.93% - 1 x 42.07 = + 12.96%
Betting P at any asym hand 1 x 42.07 - 1 x 57.93% = - 15.86%
Betting B at any sym hand: +0.95 x 50% - 1 x 50% = - 2.5%
Betting P at any sym hand +1 x 50% - 1 x 50% = 0%
Therefore itlr we can only hope to be ahead by catching a higher percentage of asym hands than expected when betting Banker and a higher than expected amount of sym hands when betting Player. The remaining events are just belonging to strong or very strong negative propositions.
Obviously there's no one method in the world that could hope to be long term winner whenever the cumulative sums of those four situations will produce the expected negative amount.
It's just a work about detecting when an asym hand will show up more likely within a restricted range of hands, at the same time trying to get rid of those sym hands going to B side as itlr the number of sym B hands will be equal to the number of P sym hands but very differently payed.
For example, say we bet Banker and a simple BBBB pattern shows up with no asym hands coming out. Itlr we are losing more money than if we were wagering Player side thus losing all four bets. An apparent "good" situation just becomes a strong losing event.
Conversely a Banker steady wagering on the same BBBB pattern including just one asym hand will get us a long term profit.
Back to your question.
The asym Banker advantage is an average long term value made by all possible standing/drawing situations after a third card is dealt to the Player and Banker can decide what to do in relation of its point (3,4,5 and 6 initial points). We know that most edge comes from standing 5s, then standing 4s, then standing 3s. 6s drawing after a 6 or 7 is dealt to the Player just lower the disadvantage, it's not a true advantage. I mean that the asym power on asym hands could be more or less concentrated, always depending upon how is the card distribution on the actual shoe. Thinking this way we may assign a specific role to any asym hand occurred, not only in the form of initial point but in terms of actual result.
Now let's compare the general probability with the actual probability: 8.6% asym occurence getting a 15.86% B advantage with what really happen at the shoe we're playing at.
Former value is more stable than second one as it's more likely to get P drawing situations as opposed to 3,4,5,6 B points. Actually almost no one single shoe will form no asym hands. Yet the average 15.86% B edge on those asym hands is more whimsically placed, being the reflex of which B point is dealt when P draws. Not mentioning that the main destiny of asym hands is focused about just one card, that is the third card.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: alrelax on June 14, 2020, 11:44:05 pm
And look at that board, that I put a picture up of the players. I believe this is what Asym is talking about and I've seen more of this than a banker's equivalent. Yes I see runs and streaks and clumps for Banker over the Decades of playing, but as an overall majority there's more of something like this and more clumps for players and easier to follow for player because of that third card than anything else IMO.
And I've said it many times, I love the players in the first section or first two sections of the shoe and this is very easy to clean house if you're not teaming up or listening to other people on their Banker drive and how they only wager for banker. Or how they only want a banker streak and few believe players coming out. Enough said, take a look at this picture, I believe this supports what Asym says?
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on June 15, 2020, 12:15:16 am
Actually in the vast majority of the times, strong Player shoes feature many asym hands that went "wrong" for B side. It's like betting a less likely situation knowing that events favoring the opposite B side are not coming out as the shifting power was somewhat over.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on June 21, 2020, 11:51:23 pm
The absolute certainty to play baccarat with an edge is by knowing precisely on which side a key card will fall. We know that and we know that this thing isn't possible.
Next it comes the more intricate field of "statistical approximations", that is how things could more likely develop according to both general specific guidelines and actual observations. It's true that without any math edge we are generally going to nowhere, but it is altogether true that when a given method itlr is getting lower sd values than expected we are at least taking a less worse approach. More deeply we want to go in the process, higher will be the probability to win up to the point where the negative HE will be inverted to our favor. Meaning that no "unfortunate" back to back sequences could destroy our plan if we have carefully assessed what I name the "asym factor" (ASF) working for each shoe dealt. Higher is the ASF value, higher is our probability of success.
Bac outcomes are the direct product of:
- asym hands apparition favoring B side mathematically, getting a finite frequency over a single shoe;
- key cards finite distribution falling here and there;
- very slight propensity to get the opposite result just happened;
- actual result of asym hands;
- actual result of sym hands;
- third card impact on outcomes.
Say each one of those factors are more or less unbalanced in the shoe we're playing at. Of course most strenght should be assigned to the asym hand apparition as any B4 or B5 (and at a lesser degree any B3) facing a P drawing situation is hugely favorite to win.
Next comes the key cards falling, nobody wants to face a first card 8 or 9 when wagering Banker and vice versa.
Then the old very slight propensity to get streaks ending up. It's a sure fkng statistical finding that at baccarat streaks are shorter than at any other same probability independent propositions results (try to compare REAL bac shoes with 50.68/49.32 mere probability decisions)
The actual result of asym hands is an issue understimated by many. Once a math situation went wrong for the favorite side, betting Banker next means to hope that another asym hand will come out. I'm not suggesting that when an asym hand produced a Player result, the best bet is wagering Player. Just that the possible asym math force was quite consumed.
The actual result of sym hands is probably one of the most important factors to be examined. Itlr and no matter what is the actual result, we are way less disadvantaged whether each same class of selective bets are made upon hands getting sym decisions when betting P than B. Obviously.
Finally there's third card nature, more or less unbalanced to produce favourable or not situations to Player side. Surely 4s are the best cards to be dealt to a drawing P side, then 5s and so on. Notice that there's a subtle line between a third card 8 or 9 being more detrimental than not to P side, but at the same time hugely beneficial when Banker shows a natural point negating P to draw and getting those key cards as first card.
To simplify a lot, best random walk to follow is that one that had shown a huge degree of asymmetricity whatever intended, either from a mere quantity point of view and, more importantly, from a quality point of view.
Our goal should be oriented to get ALL winning situations at the shoe we're playing at and naturally we can't win every hand when wagering each hand dealt or most hands dealt.
Therefore we must find the best random walks getting such feature in the shoe we're playing at and, of course, to get all winnings we must start with a win.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on June 22, 2020, 10:14:22 pm
Look at this shoe (ties ignored).
BPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBP BPBP BP PBPBPB B P P B BP P BP P B P P P B P P B P B P P P
In this shoe there were 12 asym hands (well above average) whom one produced a tie. Quite curiously Banker got more naturals than Player.
This shoe produced ALL winning hands in the five hands played (for that matter we didn't bet a single hand on the Player nine-hand streak and on the Banker six-hand streak).
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: RickK on June 23, 2020, 10:56:35 am
as...Need some help understanding your scorecard....Assuming the above is a regular horizontal scorecard and the first row is the heading (BPBPBP....), why are there some blank columns in between some of the events ? and.. your explanation of the results is understood in your description in writing, but on the card there is no indication showing your results...i.e. which hands were asym, which were bet/won, which were naturals, etc...appears that the misalignment is a typing issue, but what should we be looking for in this scorecard ? Rick
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: alrelax on June 23, 2020, 12:39:47 pm
Asym, I fixed the card, it should be correct now, let me know if it is not.
As far as the blank spaces between the events, a lot of people score the shoe on a horizontal going to the right. If it makes banker, it's one spot and if it cuts to the player the next spot would be to the right, it would be player. If it makes player three more times, players would be under that second player going down 3 spots, so it will be a total of four players. If it doesn't make a repeat it would be blank and it would move to the next spot to the right.
Same way the Big Road does on the scoreboard, the same way. A lot of people do not do or vertical, they do the actual Big Road on the scorecard and make their own notes on it. So the bottom line is the blank spaces just means that it did not make a repeat Banker or Player underneath the first Banker/Player.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: RickK on June 23, 2020, 12:59:13 pm
Alrelax...what you've described is pretty standard..maybe it's my screen, but what I was referring to are the blank "columns"...in the first 10 "event columns" there are 2 blank, 1 B, 1 P, 1 B, 1 P, then 4 blank..Big Road does not have blank or empty columns between events..just wondering if that is a typo or if it meant something..
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: alrelax on June 23, 2020, 01:03:07 pm
Must be your screen, I don't see any empty columns, it's an exact copy of a Big Road.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: RickK on June 23, 2020, 02:37:34 pm
Ok...as mentioned in my first post on this issue, I was assuming that the first "row" on Asym's post was the "heading" of a scorecard (or Big Road) of a shoe...it apparently is the first actual "result" of an event..apologize for the confusion...... ..
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: RickK on June 23, 2020, 03:01:51 pm
Now back to the more important issue, what are we looking for in terms of asym hands, naturals, hands bet/won, etc. ? ...the post is showing B/P hand results, but not indicating where or when any of these other occurrences took place...
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on June 28, 2020, 07:52:49 pm
My bad. Thanks Al and sorry Rickk and everyone. After posting the shoe everything appeared correct on my screen.
Let's try again with a simpler form:
B P BB PP BB PP B P B P B P BB PPPPPPPPP B P B P B PP BB PP BBB PPP BB P B P B PP B P B PPPPP B P BB P BBBBBB PPP
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on June 28, 2020, 10:13:35 pm
Mathematically our long term EV is in direct relationship between asym and sym betting ranges.
For example, say a portion of the shoe presents eight straight sym hands and the actual outcomes of those sym hands are producing an eight Banker streak. If we were betting Banker each hand belonging to this streak we may think to be lucky or geniuses. Actually we are severely losing money. On the other hand, the same sym 8-hand pattern could form a Player streak of the same lenght and now a steady Player betting cannot get us other than a zero negative edge at least.
Since the probability to get one of the possible 256 different BP patterns on those sym situations remains the same, it's quite obvious that there's no point to bet Banker at any of those eight sym hands.
Thus the Banker side should be wagered just about the probability to form or not an asym hand among a very restricted range of hands. This one is the only wise math approach working itlr as the math advantage must overcome the negative HE.
We should remember again that most asym hands edge comes from 5s and 4s Banker initial points and, at a lesser degree. from 3s.
Think that many Banker 5s and 4s initial points will cross standing/natural Player situations, therefore transforming potential shifted events (that is asym hands) into mere symmetrical circumstances.
In some way we could infer that the probability to form a 4 or 5 Banker initial point is somewhat dependent about the previous situations and we should always be focused about the mere asym/sym probability. Let's say that as long as no 4 or 5 (and, at a lesser degree a 3 point) Banker initial point will be formed, we are betting a close to zero negative edge game when wagering P side.
In any case, we want to add a further parameter, that is how asym hands went in our shoe.
Say we know for sure that the actual shoe is presenting such sequence (S= symmetrical hands and N= non symmetrical hands):
The are no other perfect plays than wagering Banker at hands #5, #7, #12, #13, #20, #28, #42, #64. For now we cannot care less about the real BP outcomes, after all the winning probability of such sequence is a long math proposition of 0.5 (S) and 0.5793 (N) events. Quite likely not every N spot will form a Banker hand, not mentioning that at S spots everything will be possible.
Now let's compare the same deck N or S situations with the new distribution. Of course the probability to get the exact N or S distribution will be zero and, by an obvious higher degree, the same results.
Nonetheless, the clustering N or S effect will seem to remain the same as cards tend not to be properly shuffled.
It's like playing a game where we might be very very slight favored or hugely favored at various degrees, totally getting rid of the potential situation to find ourselves facing the exact counterparts.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on June 28, 2020, 11:25:40 pm
Think about math percentages first.
If we would bet Banker side five hands long then getting at least one asym hand, we're getting a long term advantage. If by taking advantage of other bac features we want to wager Player side, we want all sym hands to be formed, meaning we're not losijg a dime itlr.
Asym hands that went "wrong" for B side just endorse the probability to get sym hands on the very next outcome as the probability to get back to back asym hands is distant. We surely do not want to wager a side being payed 0.95:1 than 1:1.
By the same way of thinking, a B natural is going to produce a way lesser impact than the same P natural.
Next time we'll consider naturals.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: RickK on June 30, 2020, 11:55:19 am
"If we would bet Banker side five hands long then getting at least one asym hand, we're getting a long term advantage. If by taking advantage of other bac features we want to wager Player side, we want all sym hands to be formed, meaning we're not losijg a dime itlr."
as, could you provide an explanation to help understand what this means ?...thanks in advance
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on July 05, 2020, 09:50:19 pm
Hi Rickk!
We can't hope to be long term winners without getting a positive EV, no matter how is taken.
Globally we know that our EV is negative, being slight negative (0.18 is the difference) by constantly wagering Banker side.
Math speaking, there are only two situations to bet favourably itlr:
- catching more asym hands than expected while wagering B side;
- NOT catching asym hands while wagering P side.
Example. An infinite run of six hands are dealt (consecutively or not, it doesn't matter) and we want to see what's our EV depending upon which side we would like to bet. If all those six hands are symmetrical, we know that itlr we'll win half of them regardless of the side we choose to bet. Thus the EV is:
Banker bets: (0.95 x 0.5) x 3 - (1 x 0.5) x 3 = 1.425 - 1.5 = -0.075
Player bets: (1 x 0.5) x 3 - (1 x 0.5) x 3 = 0
That means that betting a $100 unit we'll get on average a $296.25 return on our money when betting Banker and a $300 return while wagering Player side. Same proportions could be extracted regarding eight hands or ten hands or about hands of any lenght.
When a single asym hand comes out, things abruptly shift toward Banker side, altering hugely the normal EV flow just for that very hand.
Now the asym hand EV on Banker bets is 0.95 x 0.5793 - 1 x 0.4207 = 0.1296
Do the math and you'll see that itlr an invincible betting plan could be oriented to spot the situations when an asym hand apparition is more likely within a more restricted than expected range or, at a way lesser degree, that a given shoe sequence is more likely to produce more natural sym events. In the former case we will of course privilege B side, in the latter the P choice.
Naturally the 0.5 (sym) and 0.5793 (B/P asym) probability values are just general values, yet the payment remains the same (B=0.95:1 and P=1:1), that is hugely shifted toward one side.
And we know that not all asym hands will get the 0.5793 probability, it's just a cumulative math situation. Most asym hands power comes from Banker 5 points facing a P drawing hand, then Banker 4 points facing a P drawing hand and at a way lesser degree B 3 points facing a P drawing hand. 6 B points dealing a 6 or a 7 third card to P side are just lowering the negative egde.
Of course all standing-natural/standing-natural situations (belonging to the sym spots category) itlr will advantage Player side as first they are payed 1:1 instead of 0.95:1, then any Banker 6 point facing any standing Player situation must stand prompting a sure negative math proposition.
Tomorrow we'll see how to consider outcomes in terms of asym/sym actual distribution.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on July 06, 2020, 11:15:38 pm
At this point it should be clear that our long term results are in direct relationship between the different EVs working on those two very diverse situations.
Many craps players like to place odds at pass lines or don't pass lines after the point is established. Normally the HE is never zero, say very close to zero but never zero. At baccarat we've seen that as long as no asym hands will be formed, wagering Player side is a way better option than betting Banker as the payment is 1:1 and not 0.95:1. That means that on symmetrical hands virtually no card distributions could alter significantly the Banker negative EV.
Reasoning in this way we could build a result plan just on the very first four cards dealt. As long as Player draws and Banker do not show a 5, 4 or a 3, we are really in good shape when betting Player. Conversely, this is the exact situation we want to look for when wagering Banker.
Going to less likely situations, we see that any standing/natural situation can only advantage Player side itlr, even if in that shoe any Player 7 point will lose everytime to a Banker natural.
No asym hand = no Banker party!
What's the real probability to get the Player drawing/ Banker 5,4 or 3 initial point situation?
It's 7.72%
Meaning that 87.05% of the times our Banker bets are long term losers. And of course that 12.95% of the times are huge long term winners.
It could happen that some shoes are so badly shuffled that the asym formation would be more or less likely in many portions of the shoe, we can take into account the consecutiveness of the asym apparition, the quality of asym situations etc.
Say you want to split the shoe into 6-hands betting portions (bet for real or fictionally). At a 8-deck shoe you'll get around 12 situations (ties ignored). It's impossible that every situation will be symmetrically placed, thus some portions must involve a B advantage (asym apparition). Nevertheless most portions are symmetrically placed getting a very different EV depending upon which side we like to bet. It could happen that one or more asym hands will show up within every single portion of this shoe (thus making profitable a B wagering), but I guess it's more likely we'll hit a slot jackpot.
More likely and knowing that the asym hand apparition probability is around 8%, some portions will be asym hands free. The average probability is that a slight lesser amount of such portions will be symmetrically placed. Actually a balanced occurence of asym hands cannot get a steady pace for obvious reasons, so we could infer that more than one asym hands might show up in one or more portions. Therefore lowering (or increasing) the probability on subsequent portions.
Not giving a damn about the actual results, we know that the shoe is producing an average amount of pure sym or asym/sym portions. Portions formed by all sym hands cannot elicit other than a Player betting. On the contrary, portions containing one or possibly more asym hands will elicit a Banker wagering.
Combined with the very slight propensity to get the opposite result, asym hand quality and actual outcome, general asymmetricity of card distributions and some other features regarding specific random walks, it's not that difficult to spot the situations where our EV will be neutral or hugely shifted toward one side or another.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: RickK on July 12, 2020, 03:16:44 am
Had some questions with regard to the portion of this post listed below....
"Reasoning in this way we could build a result plan just on the very first four cards dealt. As long as Player draws and Banker do not show a 5, 4 or a 3, we are really in good shape when betting Player. Conversely, this is the exact situation we want to look for when wagering Banker.
Going to less likely situations, we see that any standing/natural situation can only advantage Player side itlr, even if in that shoe any Player 7 point will lose everytime to a Banker natural."
1) with regard to the Banker side total after a Player draw...assuming you didn't include 6 for better percentage results ?...and should Banker total be only 2 card total or is 3 card acceptable ? or does 3 card Banker not make it asymmetrical ?
2) Does "the very first four cards dealt" refer to the first four cards of the shoe ?
3) With regard to "any standing/natural situation" favoring player... a natural on either side, favors player ? and if a natural occurs on each side (same hand) that would favor Player also ?
4) Also one last question not related to this post, but may have been addressed elsewhere on the forum, how do you handle a Player 2 card total / Banker 3 card total ??
As always, thank you...
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on July 12, 2020, 10:03:50 pm
Hi Rickk!
1) Most Banker asymmetrical strenght comes from standing 4s and 5s (and at a way lesser degree from standing 3s). In those instances when Banker must draw after knowing the third card dealt to Player, the hand becomes symmetrical. Banker initial 6s are, along with pure sym situations, the points you really do not want to get when betting Banker as the hand becomes asymmetrical only when a third card 6 or 7 is dealt to the Player. And in this instance the B disadvantage is just lowered. If itlr you'll know for sure that one side will get a 6 initial point (symmetrical probability) but you don't know which side gets this point, would you prefer to wager P or B?
2) Nope. First four cards I'm referring to are extracted from every new hand situation. Say we want to build up two simple random walks according to the actual shoe distribution in terms of initial four card points. Itlr the side kissed by a higher 4-card initial point will be favored to win. Of course there's no debate that a 6 or 7 (or natural) P initial point will get the best of it itlr. As the same equally probable counterpart is not going to get the same edge for obvious reasons.
The problem arises when Player is forced to draw (0-5 points) and Banker shows a 3,4 or 5 initial point that makes the above assumption worthless. But we know the general probability that such thing will happen.
There are times when Player crosses situations where the higher initial point will belong to asymmetrical propositions and others when the asym B force is denied at the start.
Moreover a kind of third random walk could be put in action anytime higher initial points will win or lose depending upon the actual nature of third (or fourth) card. This being the natural reflex (at various degrees) of the actual card distribution that must deny a perfect balanced distribution.
3) By any means any standing/natural situation (being equally probable) will favor Player side wagering. For that matter, try to observe how happy are casinos' acute floormen working at HS tables when clueless players are jumping in joy after winning a Banker bet by a natural. Those players do not know that they are losing a huge amount of money itlr.
4) Overall any 2 card Player point vs 3-card Banker point is hugely favorite to win itlr.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on July 14, 2020, 10:39:57 pm
Let's summarize which points we really want to get while wagering B or P side. Remember that four card initial points on both sides are perfect equally likely.
A) When wagering Player side, of course we want to get a standing/natural point. It doesn't matter if our P 6 point will lose to a higher point (B7 or B natural or any higher 3-card B drawing situation). Itlr any P standing situation will make this bet EV+.
On the other end, the same standing/natural points not belonging to any asym situation falling on B side will make any B bet EV-.
Thus, regardless of the actual result, those symmetrical and specular situations will be hugely favourable when betting one side and of great detrimental when wagering the other one.
B) We bet Player and Player must draw. Quite bad news as now we have to escape the probability that Banker gets a 3, 4 or 5 initial point. In the remaining cases, Player can't be disadvantaged, actually it's slightly advantaged in the P5-B4 situation. Of course in the 0-1-2 specular B/P drawing points, highest point will be favored to win itlr, but in the same long run such probability will be equally distributed.
C) We bet Banker and Player must draw.
Unless our B point is 5, 4 or 3 we're losing money itlr. It's quite funny to watch at those players jumping in joy whenever their Banker bets are won by a natural or standing point. Actually they are losing a lot of money.
D) Both sides must draw (no third card rule can affect the outcomes).
A perfect symmetrical scenario where the winning side is payed 0.95:1 and the other one 1:1.
Long term baccarat results are just the cumulative sum of mathematical propositions. There are no ways to humanly guess a fkng nothing unless we take care of the above math situations.
Hence when wagering Player or Banker side we ought to estimate the actual probability to get:
- a standing/natural point on P side when wagering Player;
- the exact situation to cross a Player drawing hand facing a Banker 5, 4 or 3 point when betting Banker.
Since the former scenario is affected by huge volatility and of course not involving a math edge, mostly we should focus our attention about the latter scenario, being profitable by ranges and not by precise situations.
It's a sure fact that people making a living by playing baccarat are those capable to catch the situations when their P bets are crossing more standing/natural points on Player side than expected and/or when their B bets are getting a higher ratio of P drawing/B 3,4 or 5 points than expected.
The rest belongs to the Imagination song: "Just an illusion"
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on July 20, 2020, 11:36:07 pm
At baccarat we should play probabilities and there are general probabilities and actual probabilities.
No doubt at bac key cards are 9s, 8s and 7s. Itlr and per every shoe dealt the side getting most of those key cards at positions #1-#3 and/or #2-#4 will get a sure advantage. Actually 9s, 8s and 7s falling at P side will get a higher EV impact than the same cards falling at B side.
Those cards are not the cards you want to see when instructing the dealer to show "just one card" on the opposite side.
There are many other ways to form 9, 8 or 7 initial points but itlr the 9-zero value card, 8-zero value card and 7-zero value card are overwhelming the rest.
It could happen that the side getting most part of 7s, 8s and 9s will lose to the counterpart. Besides the less likely situations where those cards forming an exact 7, 8 or 9 point will lose to higher points, those cards could combine themselves with very low cards producing "worthless" points. Think about 7-3, 8-2, 9-A, 9-2, etc.. Such probability is symmetrical.
Of course per each shoe dealt those cards cannot be equally distributed on both sides. The fact that those key cards could combine with low cards getting very low points shouldn't affect the main concept that the higher the card falling on a given side, the better the probability to win. Altogether naturally is to generally think that key cards cannot fall endlessly on one side.
It's like considering those key cards as a kind of "wild cards": they may hugely, moderately, slightly or not at all help "our" hand.
In some way, outcomes are the direct reflex of those endless (but finite as considered per every shoe dealt) propositions. Most of the times such key cards will enhance the production of short symmetrical outcomes, it's only when the actual key card distribution tend to strongly privilege one side that B or P will take a substantial advantage over the other one. And of course there's the rare asymmetrical impact working (or not) for B favored hands.
I mean that itlr third or fourth card happenings will affect outcomes way lesser than what initial points will do, as the initial point gap situation involves an increased 7% advantage over asymmetrical hands.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on July 26, 2020, 11:19:38 pm
Say we want to transform the game into mere symmetrical successions where asymmetrical hands do not form B results, thus considering them as a bonus when betting Banker and a kind of losing zero at roulette when betting Player.
Naturally the asym hand apparition remains a bonus (+15.86%) on B bets and a same negative happening on P wagers. Thus it's not a sure win or loss on either sides. Surely our long term results will be affected by the number of times we crossed an asym hand when betting B, and at the same time by the number of times we met an asym situation when betting P.
Itlr and in absence of a valuable bet selection the AS/S ratio will approach more and more to the expected 8.6/91.4 ratio. Therefore we are losing. And the EV gap between a long term betting made on B instead of P is 0.18%.
Therefore there are only two options to win or to lower/cancel the HE:
a- getting an higher asym/sym hands ratio than expected capable to invert the HE when wagering Banker;
b- wagering Player only on symmetrical situations.
Then what might help us to define the terms of the problem?
Average asym hand distribution, for example.
Players are too focused about the actual outcome, maybe in the effort to follow an unguessable succession. When betting Banker we must hope that no matter how are consecutively placed our bets an asym hand must come out within a shorter gap than expected. Otherwise we're losing money, a lot of money I mean, even if the actual pattern is a symmetrical BBBBBBBBPBBBB succession (for that matter even a single asym hand happening on this sequence is a long term money loser when regularly betting banker)
Gaps between more frequent symmetrical hands and rare asymmetrical spots.
Asym-asym hand apparition hugely favors the B side and actually some shoes will present many asym hands distributed in couples (or more). In reality. more often than not asym hands come out in single apparitions (for obvious reasons) or clustered at some portion of the shoe. We ought to remember that natural/standing points on Player side totally deny the asym hand happening and some Player drawing points crossing an asym hand are actually favorite to win (think about a P5-B4 drawing situation).
On the other end, it's sure as hell that at least a couple of asym hands will come out per every shoe played. Meaning that sooner or later a constant Player betting virtually getting an EV not lower than zero, will cross those unfavourable spots where our P bet is worthless.
Symmetrical spots
Sym spots hugely favor Player side for several reasons:
- first, we're playing no worse than a fair game as bets will be payed 1:1;
- secondly, as long as no asym hand will be formed, key cards will land equally on both sides;
- third, the 7/6 symmetrical standing point situation is unequally payed regarding which side we bet.
The idea is that baccarat should be considered not just in terms of patterns but in term of ranges (gaps) helping one side at various degrees or at worst not damaging the other one. Sometimes (just for practical purposes) the most likely pattern distribution tend to correspond to those ranges.
Knowing that most outcomes are in direct relationship of sym hands results, we should focus our attention about the actual probability and distribution to get higher initial four-card points as this is the main tool that shift the results.
A thing that we'll discuss tomorrow.
as.
Title: Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
Post by: AsymBacGuy on July 27, 2020, 11:33:34 pm
It's intuitive to think that itlr chopping lines showing at most likely degrees (singles and doubles) are the direct reflex of a low imbalance of key cards. Therefore long streaks must come out whenever a strong imbalance of key cards come out.
Nonetheless key cards are finitely placed as they are burnt from the play. Say they must be more or less concentrated along the deck.
It's true that strong points could be made by "normal" cards as a combination of 3 and 6 or 4 and 4 could do, for example. And of course many results will be dictated by "weird" situations as a 4 getting a 4 vs a standing 6 etc. But those spots are just belonging to the short term deviations category.
Say we want that our strategy is set up in order to only bet Player side, thus trying to get a kind of advantage. There are three steps to look for.
1- we want a higher initial point
2- we want a standing point
3- we do not want to cross an asym hand.
Anytime we get a higher initial point and regardless of the quality of the hand, we're hugely favorite to win. Naturally key cards distribution play a great role on that. In a sense we want the shoe to get a low imbalance of key cards on the portions of shoe we chose to wager.
A standing point (6s, 7s and naturals) come out at P side with a 38% probability and of course any P standing point is favorite to win. Such 38% probability could be more or less concentrated along the various portions of the shoe.
Finally, any P drawing situation (a close to 50/50 probability) is susceptible of crossing a 3,4,5 or 6 B point, therefore being strong unfavorite (at various degrees) to win unless the initial point is higher.
Mathematically speaking it's like playing a coin flip game, a kind of 38/62 ratio and a reversed 62/38 ratio considered at different steps.
Remember that at any 8-deck shoe symmetrical initial points will come out at those percentages: