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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Walkingman, could you elaborate more on your dbl ZZ and others you mentioned,,,Thanks Mark

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.