Hi AsymBacGuy

re: your following statement from a previous post in this thread:

"...Technically speaking and whether the cards are properly random shuffled, now the game is a finite (312 or 416 cards are employed) and made by independent binomial successions...."


? Do you approach a six-deck shoe different than an eight-deck ? How?
Any opinions on same-side streaks or chops comparison from a shoe length perspective? 

When comparing the two shoes do you prefer one over the other for your most-commonly utilized wagering approach?

Thx

Quote from: KungFuBac on May 05, 2021, 05:08:47 PM
Hi AsymBacGuy--Excellent post as usual.

Re your following paragraph:

"...1.
Many times shoes are shuffled after a previous card distribution was made, yet it's very difficult to provide a strong new random card distribution.
It's quite interesting to notice that poor shuffled shoes tend to provide strong opposite patterns than what the previous one had provided. And we get at least 4 simple roads to assess this probability.
This feature is particularly reliable when Shuffle Master Machines are used and at online sites where more often than not shoes are ridiculously bad shuffled. ..."

Q with an example:

Lets say u approach the bac table for the first shoe of the morning. The dealer is hurriedly doing the pre game rituals to open the table and you hear the dealer say to the pit boss "wait, hold on i accidentally did a blackjack shuffle" and the pit boss responds "oh just Fxxx It , just get the game started,  youre already 10 mins late."

I don't know but Im assuming the shuffler has a button one can push for Bac shuffle, BJ shuffle, Mississippi Stud shuffle, XYZ game shuffle,....etc. Again, I do not know.


AsymBacGuy, What type of outcomes would you wager for in that type of shoe? vs a typically-shuffled Bac shoe???


Thanks in advance for your opinion.

Hi KFB and thanks!

Casinos have no interest to shuffle bac cards in a certain way, most money won or lost comes out from new fresh shoes offered at HS rooms where no previous information was allowed.
And vast majority of HS players like to play for clusters of repetitive outcomes, a thing very different to every other gambling game where some situations could be players' polarized by math issues.

Thus it's casinos' interest to make the outcomes more randomly as possible, a thing that from one part will enlarge the positive casino's EV and from the other one will make more guessable some pattern situations as long as consecutive shoes are coming out under the same shuffling circumstances.

Probability to get either A or B results is way more restricted and polarized than what a fkng biased coin flip dictates.
For good peace of fkng math losers that cannot see when A will be more likely than B and vice versa. Fk them.

as. 

Quote from: KungFuBac on May 08, 2021, 10:02:54 PM
Hi AsymBacGuy

re: your following statement from a previous post in this thread:

"...Technically speaking and whether the cards are properly random shuffled, now the game is a finite (312 or 416 cards are employed) and made by independent binomial successions...."


? Do you approach a six-deck shoe different than an eight-deck ? How?
Any opinions on same-side streaks or chops comparison from a shoe length perspective? 

When comparing the two shoes do you prefer one over the other for your most-commonly utilized wagering approach?

Thx

The lesser the amount of cards are involved in the process, higher will be the probability to get univocal patterns to bet into as the room to get a kind of balanced situations are going against the odds.
It's a sure fact that casinos using 6-decks are getting inferior profits than casinos offering 8-deck shoes.
A possible reason is because casinos using 6-deck shoes offer fewer side bets than 8-deck casinos.

Anyway, yes, I'm sure 6-deck shoes are getting more profitable situations than 8-deck shoes.

as. 

Thx AsymBacGuy for your reply. I agree.



Continued Success,

Hi a.s.
I appreciate u offering an opinion on my thoughts/inquiry. I know my example didn't provide alot of info.
That event actually happened. It was a crazy shoe/session not only from the pre-game ritual but the dealer was new and made two misdraws during the shoe,...etc. It was years ago at a cas in Nevada approx 40 mins off the strip.

"Lets say u approach the bac table for the first shoe of the morning. The dealer is hurriedly doing the pre game rituals to open the table and you hear the dealer say to the pit boss "wait, hold on i accidentally did a blackjack shuffle" and the pit boss responds "oh just Fxxx It , just get the game started,  youre already 10 mins late."


Thx again,

Hi KBF!!

I have the absolute certainty that most live casinos don't have a single reason to deal bac shoes favoring them in some way other than knowing their constant math edge (at bj this thing is possible but very unlikely).
I wouldn't be so sure about certain online casinos.

For that matter casinos do not know how to arrange cards to make players to lose, even if they consult the best statistical experts on the planet.
Since most baccarat players like to following trends and knowing that all mechanical systems rely upon the probability that strong deviations must be compensated sooner or later, casinos cannot know how to arrange cards to neglect this or that situation.

More specifically, any simple BP succession could be splitted into infinite derived successions each of them getting different features that cannot be symmetrically placed per every succesion considered.
The coin is biased at the start of any single shoe, unfortunately we can't properly guess per every shoe dealt which side of the coin will be biased.

The fact that B side is math favorite to win itlr doesn't help us too much as it's strongly influenced by the actual card distribution.
The probability to get shoes producing a well below than average amount of asym hands is around any corner, thus any regular B wagering will get tremendous negative situations. After all when we lose we lose 1 and when we win we win 0.95.
Not mentioning how things really work at many other roads.

as.

Now let's put the craps system ideas into baccarat.

That craps system relies upon the distant probability to get four distinct consecutive players in a row to make each 4 or more passes.

Our progressive betting sounds as

$10-20-40-80

$20-40-80-160

$30-60-120-240

$40-80-160-320

Total $1500, that is 150 units.

Whenever we win we restart the $10 betting, whenever we lose we'll go toward the next betting step.

At craps this system is so solid that you'll need a lot of sessions to lose your entire 150 units bankroll. Odds are that in the process you'll be in the positive field in the vast majority of the times.

Say we want to assign at any single baccarat column a kind of new shooter, thus whenever a new column starts it's like this column impersonates a new shooter.
For example a BBBPBBBPPPBBPBPPPB sequence will endorse the action of 8 distinct shooters getting each 2 passes (as the first hand of the shoe is a neutral indicator), zero passes, 2 passes, 2 passes, 1 pass, zero passes, zero passes and 2 passes.

In this "fortunate" example we didn't get forward the first step betting line, thus we'll get all winnings.

Of course any 5+ streak will make us a first-step loser, thus thereafter we need a proper cumulative amount of not 5+-hands to get an overall win.

Now we'll get singles, doubles, triples and 4-streaks to get a winning situation, the only situation we'll lose is whenever a 4+ situation will come out.

In a word, we'll lose our entire bankroll when a shoe will produce four or more 5+ consecutive streaks, a thing that it'll surely happen but by which degree of probability?

Now say we do want to put in action just the players getting two wins in a row. After all doubles are the more likely results at baccarat, aren't they?

Then our new betting patterns are doubles, triples, 4-streaks and 5-streaks. At the price of missing singles opportunities, now we know that the probability to lose our entire bankroll is not existent at all other than from a theorical point of view.
Show me how many times you had crossed shoes producing four or more consecutive 6+ streaks. Answer: zero.

But we can make a further adjustment, that is to classify how many times different classes of winning/losing patterns had acted consecutively along the way.
We can't prevent shoes to produce consecutive 5+-streaks, but this happening is a perfect negation either of the general asymmetrical card distribution and of the whinsical asym strenght favoring B side.

That's now that so called math experts must put their knowledge in their a.sses, even though they can easily opine that no matter what, our bets are getting a money return lower than 1.
Yep, but for their misfortune, when properly assessed the statistical advantage will be higher than what a math edge can do.

Is this mathematical big.hornsh.it?

Probably, but we're eager to get people facing our bets.

as. 

QuoteThat's now that so called math experts must put their knowledge in their a.sses, even though they can easily opine that no matter what, our bets are getting a money return lower than 1.

           I DO NOT KNOW WHICH BOOK OF MATH SAYS SO. UNLESS WE ARE DESTINED TO LOSE EVERY HAND A PARTICULAR SUM OR WE KEEP BETTING FLAT 1 UNIT ALWAYS, HOUSE EDGE CAN NOT BEAT US DECISIVELY. When I simulated over 10 millions spins of roulette with Ophis with a progression based betting and beat that too, I understood the hollowness of such pseudo math claims.
          Take the case of martingale and any played session in the world. It will beat each. Did martingale change math? No. Same goes with labby and fibbo. There is no answer of this with any so called math genius. Math can beat the randomness and house advantage both but table limit or bankroll will stop it this way (but math is math). I went ahead and did it mathematically (with a dash of logic) within playable bankroll and table spread. I will surely win, in the long run, even if I get 6SD negative variance, meanwhile.

I see and respect your points.

But think that casinos need the appearance of sd values well below than 5 or 6 sigma to pocket most or all of players's bankrolls.

At baccarat a proper bet selection cannot reach sigma values higher than 1.5 or maybe 2, as there's no fkng way that asymmetrical probabilities or so called pseudo symmetrical probabilities can reach those values for long when applied into a finite and card dependent model.

Every bac player should adapt Smoluchowski and RVM works into baccarat and he/she'll get an idea of what we're talking about.

Everytime we're considering as baccarat as a finite and card dependent asymmetrical succession (good start), there will be times where A will be more likely than B by a degree surpassing the fkng negative math edge as the asym factors eliciting a  more likely world are getting a higher power than what the pseudo sym strenght could do in other constant symmetrical propositions.

No way baccarat is beatable by thinking that results are made by independent sym situations or, even worse,  that one side should be constantly more probable than the other one no matter what.

If one had discovered a way to beat baccarat by always wagering B side, well it means he'll be able to get the same counterpart positive results by always wagering P side by a worse -0.18% long term profit.
I mean that anyone claiming to beat baccarat by always wagering B side, should get the same positive results by always wagering the P side, now decurted by a 0.18% lesser edge.

Do not tell us that -1.06% vs -1.24% becomes a decisive factor about how to get long term wins, as the huge factor to be overcome is -1%.
LOL.

Moreover, there's no one single fkng probability to be long term winner when playing every single shoe dealt by a 1 trillion % accuracy.

as. 

No way baccarat is beatable by thinking that results are made by independent sym situations or, even worse,  that one side should be constantly more probable than the other one no matter what.

Banker is always more probable(very marginally though) due to drawing rules. Do you doubt that?

If one had discovered a way to beat baccarat by always wagering B side, well it means he'll be able to get the same counterpart positive results by always wagering P side by a worse -0.18% long term profit.

I m not sure if I could understand your statement in red in the last statement of yours. How will one wager P side by a worse 0.18% long term profit? It seems you could not properly word your feelings here. We can't bet a loser bet and still win. Whatever we need to do is in the winner bet itself. Wagering B side is not advantageous enough as the edge it has over Player is negated by the house fees. Say one gets 51 wins on Banker in 100 trials(Ties ignored), he will still lose 0.55 chips, while Player will be at -2. If house fees is removed from Banker with the same drawing rules, playing Banker would be a sure shot way to win in the long run.
I mean that anyone claiming to beat baccarat by always wagering B side, should get the same positive results by always wagering the P side, now decurted by a 0.18% lesser edge.

Do not tell us that -1.06% vs -1.24% becomes a decisive factor about how to get long term wins, as the huge factor to be overcome is -1%.

Here I absolutely agree with you. There could be way to dodge the house edge on both Banker as well as Player alongwith momentary variance against us but that is where most of the Players get silenced.

I personally prefer betting Player and not at all concerned with the so called 0.18% disadvantage as in progressive betting, betting Banker has its own set of drawbacks.

Hi Alba!

Banker is always more probable(very marginally though) due to drawing rules. Do you doubt that?

Yes, I dispute the "always" word.

Large samples show that Banker could be easily behind to Player after several shoes dealt.
Now think what the vig impact causes on our Banker winning bets when the B/P ratio is too close or even lower than 50/50.

If any single shoe wil get on average just one more B hand than P hand, we see that not many patterns will be so much affected by the asymmetrical probability.

The only way to get a real advantage by always wagering Banker comes whenever the asym hands number will be quite higher than expected per any shoe played.
And the "magic" winning probability value to look for in this instance is 51.3% or higher.

Unfortunately we can't prevent many consecutive card distributions to NOT provide a asym/sym ratio higher than expected, so hoping constantly for a math oriented situation won't be a viable option to beat this game.

On the other end, card distributions favoring asymmetrical probabilities NOT belonging to math advantaged situations (but shifted by key card distribution issues) recur at every shoe played.
Half of them will dictate to bet B, but the remaining half induce us to bet P.

About your next thoughts.

The bac probability isn't a constant asym proposition, 50.68/49.2 BP probabilities are coming out by long term assessments, that is by considering each outcome as a valuable result to be classified.
But for good peace of many, this probability is affected by either card dependent and math finite features both denying a perfect and independent source of randomness (of course happening only when we want to mix pears with apples, that is considering each outcome as a valuable one to be registered).

It's scientifically proven that any live card distribution will be more or less affected by a kind of defected randomness as such distributions won't fit the place selection and probability after events requirements confirming that a sample is a real random sample.
Thus any single shoe must be considered as a world apart.

Of course a possible defect of randomness is more probable to be detected whenever a given pattern will show back to back same situations and at baccarat we get many different situations to look for.

as.

Alba, I agree with your Player's betting attitude.

First, most of our bets aren't entitled to cross an unfavourable asym hand favoring B; in some way a selected betting plan must avoid 7-8 math disadvantaged hands per shoe, on average.
After all, when betting P side, the probability to cross an unfavourable math hand is 8.6%.

Second, people who haven't played at HS rooms do not get the idea about how much the vig affects their bankroll, most of the times unnecessarily.

Third, many shoes provide card distributions giving a fk about the asym B hand advantage, meaning P will win anyway at those asym B favored hands. And in the meanwhile the finite asym hand probability (favoring B) will be consumed.

Fourth, it's way more likely to get shoes with lower than average percentage of asym hands than higher than average asym hand percentages.

Fifth, more than 1/3 of the total results will show a natural, but B naturals are payed 0.95:1 and P naturals are payed 1:1.

Sixth, the vast majority of bets made toward a kind of asymmetricity applied to many random walks will get a way more winning probability when P side is wagered.

Seventh, let's casinos think that P bettors are losers, they surely won't like so much a worse 0.18% disadvantage than B bettors.

Eighth, when a given random walk is going to form a more likely long term asymmetrical situation, we want to be payed 100% and not 95%.

as.

Asym,
          While I can argue on many aspects but am sure about one thing. To lose with Player or even Banker bet (banker bet is not destined to get a net win either), in the long term house presupposes three things:
1. Flat betting will be done, which is bound to lose as you can not find any logic to get more wins than losses in Player, in the long run or way to offset house fees if you choose Banker.
2. Crazy progressions will lose even more and faster
      and I firmly believe that both are set in stone. Only difference one can make is doing either of these two:
1. Somehow manage more wins than losses in number to offset the house edge and house fees and win flat bet;or
2. Somehow win more money and lose less despite more losses than wins(in numbers) and that too without any order.

                      I spent thousands of hours in trying both and personally experienced that I should strive in latter. If you can do something to better both or even in one, it is heavenly. Everything else is empty futile attempt. We can define and code and simulate all sane ideas whereby we can play manually and there is no room for guessing whether what we are thinking should work or not.

Hi Alba!


1. Flat betting will be done, which is bound to lose as you can not find any logic to get more wins than losses in Player, in the long run or way to offset house fees if you choose Banker.

That's absolutely true whether a static probability will act per each single outcome (roulette, for example), thus every outcome registered in infinite sub successions will invariably get the same  values dictated by math.
However baccarat outcome probabilities belong to a dynamic world obviously affected by the actual card distribution forming infinite sub successions that are not fitting the math values they should get even after thousands and thousands of shoes dealt.

It's altogether natural to know that single shoe dynamic probabilities will increasingly merge toward the expected math values that in the state of art of baccarat were considered just in B/P terms. (side bets aside). That is by unbeatable terms.

2. Crazy progressions will lose even more and faster
      and I firmly believe that both are set in stone. Only difference one can make is doing either of these two:
1. Somehow manage more wins than losses in number to offset the house edge and house fees and win flat bet;or
2. Somehow win more money and lose less despite more losses than wins(in numbers) and that too without any order.


Again, you are 100% correct.

If I'm playing a 50.68%/49.32% probability (where 50.68% is EV-) knowing that no one hand wil fit this probability value but just itlr, I'm not doing myself a favor.
To get my progression to win I need to transform that 50.68% into a profitable 51.3% (at least) and that 49.32 into a 50.1 (at least).

Thus no one progression will get the best of it until such values will be reached itlr.
The idea and claims stating that a progressive plan may be in the positive field for long can be easily disproved by a sd study (and common sense).

By the early XX century an eminent roulette scholar tried to set up a plan by waiting that a 3 or higher sigma deviation would happen at one EC side, then starting the betting to get a kind of RTM effect, that is wagering the opposite side to get sooner or later at least a +1 situation (slight balancing the previous deviation).
Unfortunately many pc tests confirmed that betting the very first hand or the hands following a 3 sq deviation or higher deviation provide the same unbeatable random probabilities (48.65% at single zero wheels).

1. Somehow manage more wins than losses in number to offset the house edge and house fees and win flat bet;or
2. Somehow win more money and lose less despite more losses than wins(in numbers) and that too without any order.


Point 1 is the only sure way to win itlr, and even here we'll have to endure some harsh times to control the variance.

Point 2: yep, this should be a heavenly task negating some issues I've written so far.

Think what can do two players who have found out that the game is beatable by flat betting and the other one by getting a long term profit even when the W/L ratio is shifted toward the right. 

as.

QuoteThink what can do two players who have found out that the game is beatable by flat betting and the other one by getting a long term profit even when the W/L ratio is shifted toward the right.

    Nope. Both can not work together as they are based upon altogether different premises. I consider baccarat to be absolutely random and absolutely unrelated with card points, hands number, dealer, dealt/burnt cards so far etc. If these considerations can work to help even slightly in predicting outcomes, we do not need an MM strategy, at all. If all these combined gives us even 1% edge against the house, we just need to keep betting the biggest unit fearlessly. With an edge, we will win from casino as easily as casino wins from us. Simple.
I must congratulate you for having an edge against the house in a "so called random" game. Momentary drawdowns should not deter you.