So our goal is to get one of these precise B patterns: 1-1, 1-2, 2-1 and 2-2.
Of course we start the betting when a 1 or a 2 happen.
Since we utilize a mini progression as 1-2 or 100-150 or 100-120, etc. to be ahead of something we need to win right at the first attempt; if we lose this very first attenpt, odds are strongly shifted toward NOT getting any kind of profit as the average number of the searched patterns is four.
(for example, after a L we can only break even with a subsequent WWW sequence)

Nonetheless, we can choose to make our first bet right on the second searched pattern when the first pattern produced a loss, that is betting to get a LW situation.

Since itlr the overall number of L outweigh the number of W (in term of units won/lost), we could test large datasets to see what's the most likely losing pattern distribution.
After all, Banker 3+s are more likely because asym hands come out in finite numbers, mostly clustered.
Hence we do not want to fall into the trap of looking for a positive pattern whenever the first two patterns are LL or risking to cross an unfavourable WL spot.
This is not a stop loss or stop win concept, just a cumulative study on what are our best chances to win at EV- propositions.

After all we can't win less than one unit (or a portion of it) and since we're flat betting we do not want to chase losses when the actual shoe had shown a "negative" propensity from the start. (As we need at least a triple number of W to balance a single L)

On average and choosing to adopt a super selected strategy (waiting shoes forming a first L), we are going to bet nearly 25% of the total shoes dealt.
Moreover, not every shoe will form a four (or greater) WL pattern, some of them stops at two and three (and sometimes only one W or L situation arises).

Why such strategy should enhance our probability to win?

Like other binomial games, most part of bac results are formed by singles and doubles, In three hands dealt, only two patterns over eight form triples (odds 2:8.), the remaining part includes singles and doubles.
Bac rules from one part raise the probability to form 3+s (Banker) and the opposite is true at Player side favoring singles and doubles.
Anyway, this math propensity comes out just one time over 11,62 hands dealt and sometimes it will shift the results very slightly. Not mentioning that some card distributions favor Player side even in asym spots.

Many bac players tend to emphasize too much the less worse 0.18% Banker return, this simple strategy (along with some additional adjustments I do not want to discuss here) shows that we can concede the house the higher advantage; let the house hope everytime we'll make a rare bet an asym hand will come out precisely on that spot.

as.

Thx AsymBacGuy
Your last two posts have stimulated a couple thoughts/questions that I will follow up on within a couple days.

Im in the process of reading several of your back posts/threads (not all 1000  , yet) and may find some of the answers there.


All the best,

That's good KFB! :-)

Think as baccarat as a game of a slight biased 12-face tossing dice getting 6 B faces and 5 P faces where the remaining 1/12 side prompts the toss of a further hypothetical dice getting 7 B faces and 3 P faces.

If each one-step or two-step toss will be independent from the previous ones, no way a profitable strategy could be applied as the asymmetrical probability will come out proportionally as expected.

I mean that 11 out of 12 possible first dice toss outcomes are differently payed, one side getting 0.95:1 payment and the other one 1:1 payment.
It's just about that nearly 1:12 odds probability that things substantially change by math terms.

Thus Banker bettors will be hugely right just one time over 12 attempts and Player bettors will be hugely wrong just one time over the same 12 hands range.

In a sense Banker bettors are hugely right rarely and Player bettors are hugely wrong rarely.
At the same token, Banker winners are more likely id.iot 5% contributors, whereas Player bettors feel as idi.o.ts just one time over 12 bets. 

The common suggestion dictating to wager B side in order to lower the HE is completely unsound as long as we decide to select at most our bets.
Following this "B always betting" strategy, we see most B bets are hugely unfavorite as the asym strenght happens rarely, mainly as they are not taking into account the whimsical finite key cards impact.

It's interesting to notice that a careful selected betting plan will get more profitable opportunities at Player side than at Banker side, meaning that a 1:1 payment will crush a supposedly 0.95:1 payment diluted at more likely expected math B spots.

Remember that we just need a 50.1% probability on our P bets to get a long term edge.
We shouldn't care less whether we could find ourselves in those rare 42.07%/57.93% disadvantaged asym spots, consider them as a kind of zero happening at roulette now getting a substantial degree of success.

After all it's only the key card distribution who cares itlr, isn't it?

as.

Without any doubt itlr we'll win because the side we have chosen to bet presents more two-card initial points higher than the opposite side.
Although it happens frequently that third card/s will invert this strong advantage, hoping to be ahead for long by guessing repeatedly that the unfavorite side will win is pure illusion.

For example, if we had bet Player getting 2-K and Banker shows 3-T, third card to the Player is a picture and Banker catches a 7 we win the hand but actually we have lost from the start.

Third card/s, besides the important asymmetrical hand factor, are just there for entertainment and to confuse things.
Naturally there are some equal two-card initial points that may need the third card draw, in these situations no one side is advantaged from the start (again besides the asym factor when working).

In the vast majority of the times any new hand dealt in form of two initial cards on each side will entice the formation of very different probabilities: cumulatively the higher two-card points will be almost 2:1 favorite to win the hand. It's like playing two dozens vs one dozen at roulette but by wagering just one unit and being payed 1:1 or 0.95:1 and not 0.5:1.

If we're here is because we are trying to dispute the randomness of the card distributions or any other bac feature that might get us a kind of an edge.
Surely we can't dispute math situations once they have appeared.

Hence a long term winning player is anyone capable to get a greater share of two-card initial points at the right side. Real outcomes are just a by product of such strong math propensity.
On the same token, we know that certain higher points will be so favorite to win up to the point they're eventually unbeatable (natural 9s) and going down with other high points.

It remains to define whether a supposedly random but surely finite card distribution will provide valuable betting spots by taking the problem by two different way of thoughts that actually constitute the same issue.

a- average lenght of uniformed one side favorite segments;

b- average number of gaps between favorite situations happening at the two opposite sides.

Obviously greater is the lenght of uniformed one side situations lower will be the number of gaps and vice versa.

Nonetheless we ought to remember that not everytime a favorite side is going to win the hand, but we have to accept this kind of error as any situation getting nearly 2:1 cumulative odds to win must eventually get a double number of wins than losses.
That means that we're allowed to get a fair amount of wrong "guessing" that we could easily reduce by selecting at most our action.

So a shoe is going to produce several "favorite initial two card states" at various degrees, try to register those situations regardless of the final outcomes.
To get precise registrations, deal the hands as bac rules dictate, nothing will change itlr.

Now in order to find out our possible long term edge we need a further adjustment, that is comparing what could happen more likely in relationship of what really happened in the past taken at different paces.

That's why RVM theories and Smoluchoswki studies help us to 'solve' baccarat.
Any random succession must provide independent results on every step of the original sequence and on every other possible subsequence derived from the original one, that is for each step whatever considered and for every random walk considered a x result will be proportionally equal to the expected probability.

Expected probability? Rattlesnakesh.i.t from the start.

as.

Thanks AsymBacGuy. Excellent last two posts/thread.

"Third card/s, besides the important asymmetrical hand factor, are just there for entertainment and to confuse things."


"Any random succession must provide independent results on every step of the original sequence and on every other possible subsequence derived from the original one, that is for each step whatever considered and for every random walk considered a x result will be proportionally equal to the expected probability."

I like that sentence.

All the best,

Thanks again KFB!

There are several experiments to make, one of them is to compare the flow of two-card initial situations with the corresponding flow of actual final results.

From a strict math point of view each hand's winning probability is polarized at the start, only few hands will be affected by the third card/s impact, namely two-card situations being equal and both needing the third card (asym hand rules besides, of course).

Thus we should focus our attention about how many times higher two-card points on the same side will come out in a row on average.
The fact that many two-card higher points won't produce the math results we're looking for shouldn't bother us at all: as long as we are able to catch a superior than expected amount of those spots, itlr the probability to get more W than L is sure as hell.

I mean that we do not want to be right at single spots, just adopting a bet selection at spots where the probability to be right is cumulatively enlarged.
A necessary condition that cannot be applied at every shoe dealt.

In some way after having placed our bet at a given side, we should consider W and L just in terms of superior or inferior two-card point, regardless of the real outcome.


But it's about your second quoted "sentence" that baccarat is scientifically beatable.

A random succession cannot be beaten by any means, there's no fkng way to do it.
Successful long term bac players do not need luck, actually they hate it. And of course recreational players and "I know to win" claimers need it and like it.

The game is beatable as each possible betting spot does not correspond to the expected probability dictating that each hand is independently and randomly placed. (that is EV-)

Simplifying, some portions of most part of the shoes (not every shoe) provides unrandom sequences at different levels. Not every unrandom sequence will get the player a profitable level.
This feature is more evident when considering multiple random walks running on the two-card higher point probability.
Normal players are focused about BP real outcomes, strong bac players do not give a fk about those results, they are willing to risk their money about the probability that something "favourable" is going to happen again or is going to shift. And those probabilties are restricted about finite numbers.

Tomorrow our "bac walker" example.

as.

Thx AsymBacGuy .

"...Tomorrow our "bac walker" example..."

Looking forward to the Bac Walker

Reference Points, Flow, 3rd Card, Etc., resulting in streaks.

More so in the first half of the shoe then the second half. And more so with the player side than the banker side. But don't take that for players side only, because it will happen to the banker side as well, just more-so with the player side.

Particularly the prelude will be extremely choppy or very much equal for a pretty large section. And then it will generally start out say that the player will have seven and the bank will have six or the player will have a natural or two and the banker lose by one maybe two points each time. Or it could be close, where say the player had 6 and the bank had 5 and pulled the face card or the player had 6 or 7 and the bank had 1 and pulled a 4 or a 5.  And say it was making doubles or ones and twos. And then the player made a third hand which just literally should have lost and just squashed the bank, possibly say the player having a 1 and the bank had a 7 and the player pulled a 7 or 8 for its third card. And then the next hand on the player had zero on the first two cards and the banker had zero also.  Players side pulls a 9 for its third card and the banker side pulls a face card for its third card.  Then every hand after that for another 7, 8 or 9 is either a natural for the player or a very low-scoring first two cards and the bank had a decent hand with its first two cards and the player side surpassed it every time with unbelievable draws or even reducing the banker when the banker should have won the majority of times.  With several of those draws where the bank could only lose by drawing 1 certain card, everything else wins or ties, etc.  Like where the player had a 1 and the bank had a 2 and the player pulls a face card and the banker pulls an 8. 

Happens so many times and yet even the experienced baccarat player seldom sides with this one when it is happening and only says, he can't believe it and the other side has to come on and this will not continue.

Yep, happens so many times but not most of the times. That's why IMO we should make an adjustment at every shoe dealt: is this shoe going to produce an average or higher/lower than average number of  probability spots I'm looking for?

Say we have tested several shoes and the average shifting higher two-card point shows a median=3, that is 3 is the more likely shifting number between two sides (higher two-card points, not final results).
Thus we let go all inferior situations until we'll reach a shifting number of 3.

If the prevalent shifting number is 3 (median) we know that this value will come out more likely in clusters than isolated, there are no other ways around.

Therefore instead of stubbornly hoping that shifting spots will arrest at 3 regardless, we wait until an actual 3 had formed. Then when another shifting spot will reach the 3 value, we bet toward getting another 3.
If we lose we repeat the process, if we win we have to decide what's our goal that is if we want to risk additional money to get subsequent 3s.

Although spotting those shifting spots with a percentage >50% will get us a sure math long term advantage (especially at P side where we need at least 50.1% to win whereas we need at least 51.3% at B side) some problems arise.

The main problem comes out anytime we have made a bet and equal TCPs follow shifting values of 3. Here we are forced to gamble.
Secondly, two-card higher points are cumulatively strong math advantaged to form final winning results but they are susceptible to variance (as Al correctly pointed out in his post).
Third, some profitable opportunities may end up with a tie, thus slowing down further the process.

It's quite interesting to notice that "homogeneous" sources of shuffling (i.e. same shoes shuffled manually or shuffle master machines working at the same deck) tend to provide more constant and regular median values. It's what we name as a "fair or strong" propensity going far from a perfect randomness.

as.

Greetings Alrelax

on: March 15, 2021, 05:52:50 am »Insert Quote
"...More so in the first half of the shoe then the second half. And more so with the player side than the banker side. But don't take that for players side only, because it will happen to the banker side as well, just more-so with the player side.

Particularly the prelude will be extremely choppy or very much equal for a pretty large section..."
[/b]

In simplistic terms do you feel its partially because starting on the first draw(without knowing burn cards) and obviously unknown order, that all the GOOD cards for Player are still  100%  avail in the shoe, only at this exact moment(GOOD meaning cards more likely to prevent P from drawing 3rd card)?? Coupled with the slight P advantage of having first dibs and said GOOD cards. Obviously after P draws , then B might  make same proclamation depending on the card drawn by P. This very slight and briefly enjoyable stage for P immediately starts diminishing, though minutely,  from the first card onward. Yes?


b]Particularly the prelude will be extremely choppy or very much equal for a pretty large section..."
[/b][/color]
Do you agree this prelude(chop/equal) is also often seen immediately after the streaks are observed. Yes?

Thx as always.



All the best,

Hi AsymBacGuy
Your following sentence from (March 15, 2021, 11:43:38 pm) caused a pause.

"...it's quite interesting to notice that "homogeneous" sources of shuffling (i.e. same shoes shuffled manually or shuffle master machines working at the same deck) tend to provide more constant and regular median values. It's what we name as a "fair or strong" propensity going far from a perfect randomness..."

I've evaluated various shuffling methods for other variables. However, I have not considered the affect on Shift Median Values(SMV).

Good ideas/research AsymBacGuy


All the best,

Hi KFB!! :-)

Without any shadow of doubt, itlr real results are the by product of key card impact, we could safely assume that bac results are following the general probability propensity to fall here or there and this probability is restricted within finite terms.
There are strong evidences that median values (when properly assessed) of some situations tend to more likely stop after certain values had been reached, despite of the common assumption that every situation will be independent or too slight dependent of the previous one/s.

It's like playing a game where a key card is more likely to fall at a given side, with no guarantees to get a positive outcome, just a greater than expected probability to fall there.
This propensity is more evident at manually shuffled same shoes or SMM shoes, where there's no fkng way to provide a proper random key card distribution.

Worst scenarios come out at HS rooms where any shoe is "fresh".
No worries, even those shoes are producing some exploitable median values, actually there's no way many random walks applied to the BP original sequence will get univocal results for long.
If such thing would happen and considering the average HS player's skills, casinos will go broke very soon.
Fortunately they do not.

as.

Anything can happen and everything will eventually happen.  There is not a schedule of events that can be guaranteed in anyway whatsoever, contrary to what every mathematical wiz will claim.

The streak of 11 Bankers with 3 Fortune 7s + three 3 card nines over player side of 0's, that occurred after  presentments of 15 singles and doubles; could easily have been a 10 Player streak with four Panda 8s and four 3 card nines over bankers side of 0's after 9 presentments of triple Bankers and triple Prayers as well. Or, how a series of 16 Players and Bankers chop chops will happen after a strong section or equally after ones, twos and threes that were presented in a section.

What I am trying to point out to those that still debate what actually happens will happen, verses it all has to have a schedule able to be figured out.  It does not and nobody will make money at the game Baccarat if you sit down trying to figure out what's going to happen, rather than creating a special way that suits your frame of mind and your emotional status to use a progressive wagering bet, that is in your favor when a certain series of presentments are happening within a section of the shoe.

Al, I think yours are points coming from a very experienced player capable to place many bets and many different wagers per shoe.
Quite likely you are one of the best to extract serious money from those rare shoes that come along the way. And knowing when to start or stop the betting, not an easy task when many bets are in order.
That's why I would be glad to play with you. 

Mine is a kind of opposite way to consider the game, I abandoned most side bets a long time ago focusing my attention about BP successions and derived sequences.
Annoyed to hear that baccarat is an unbeatable coin flip game, I devoted a lot of time trying to disprove this (wrong) assumption. Of course not only because a side is more likely than the other one time over 11.62 attempts on average.

Reasons why imo baccarat is a way less random and independent game than what most people think are known.
I'm dead sure others have found the same flaws, of course there's no point to illustrate precisely how to get the best of such flaws.

For that matter, I really do not understand why allegedly winning players like to talk about "discipline".
Either we get a verified edge or we don't, discipline doesn't turn an EV- game into a profitable one.
Probability to win as disciplined players is the same as being undisciplined.
Discipline intended as a way to restrict the field of operation probably helps to lose less but surely doesn't help to win itlr.

I might be the most disciplined poker player on the planet yet I stand no chance to win itlr when playing Phil Ivey.

But if we know to play baccarat with an edge, per every hand played we can toss a dice telling us the amount to bet (from $100 to $600 for example), nothing will change itlr.
It's a whimsical form of flat betting, getting zero impact on long term results. 

I see that some players have the experience to make the proper adjustments according to what the shoe is producing but to test whether they're actually doing right is almost impossible to prove. And anyway difficult to replicate.

Easier to track how given objective betting lines made under specific circumstances will get more wins than losses, that's now that we start to talk about the vulnerability of this game.

as.

To be clear, I do not concentrate solely on side Wagers but I do like them for certain percentage of my wagers. And when they're hitting, they are hitting and there's no quicker faster way to make some serious money than the side wagers at anywhere up to 200 to 1.