Thank you...

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. 

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. 

Quote from: 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.

              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.

Exactly Alba!

"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.

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.

"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.   

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. 

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?

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.

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.

https://betselection.cc/wagering-intricacies/215am-on-the-way-to-the-casino/

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? 

https://betselection.cc/wagering-intricacies/great-bac-shoe-players-cleaned-out-the-dealers-rack!/

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.

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.

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.

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