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.

"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!

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.

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.

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.







 



 

Nice Asym!
Please continue.

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. 

   







             

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

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. 

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. 

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. 

Quote from: 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. (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).

LINK>>>    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-28/wynn-resorts-macau-casino-books-staggering-black-swan-gambling-loss

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.

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. 

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. 

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