Quote from: 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.

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. 

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.

   
   

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. 


 

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. 

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.

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 .....

[/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 .

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. 

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.

Quote from: 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 .

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.

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.

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

BBBBBPPPBBPPPPPPPBBBBBBPPPPP =

1-1-1-1-1-2-2-2-1-1-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-1-1-1-1-1-1-2-2-2-2-2

then

2-2-2-2-3-4-4-3-2-3-4-4-4-4-4-4-3-2-2-2-2-2-3-4-4-4-4

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.   

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.

Next why some random walks applied to baccarat are better than others. The decisive tool to destroy this fkng beautiful game.

as.

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.